Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakaya (WO 2020/194434 as cited on IDS see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Nakaya teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed;
an exhaust path that is connected between the process container (5) and an exhaust device (23) and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container (5) and the exhaust device (23);
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line (13) and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the first valve (151b; pg. 4);
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line (13a) and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the second valve (151a, pg. 4);
a pressure detector (17) configured to detect a pressure in the process container;
and a pressure control device (19) configured to, so that a pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector (17, pressure, pg. 5) approaches a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure, pg. 5-7) which is set each time during a processing (pg. 5-7; fig. 6):
select one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) to be used in a first subprocess (APC1 Press, fig. 6, pg. 5), which is performed under a first pressure setting value (P2) in the process container (5) and a first gas flow rate (Flow rate zero, 20, pg. 3, pg. 5) into the process container (5),
according to a second pressure setting value (P3) in the process container, and a second gas flow rate (11, 20, pg. 3 of translation) into the process container (Fig. 6 and 7) for a second subprocess (APC2 Press), which is performed under the second pressure setting value (P3) and the second gas flow rate(20, substrate processing, top of pg. 4, pg. 7), subsequent to the first subprocess (Fig. 6),
set an opening degree of the other valve (152b), which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a constant state (top of page 6, pg. 7);
and adjust an opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 4, 5, and 7; Fig. 6).
The Examiner takes the position that the pressure control device 19 of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions:
“so that a pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector (17, pressure, pg. 5) approaches a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) which is set each time during a processing (pg. 6)”
“select one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) to be used in a first subprocess (APC1 Press, fig. 6, pg. 5), which is performed under a first pressure setting value (P2) in the process container (5) and a first gas flow rate (Flow rate zero, 20, pg. 3, pg. 5) into the process container (5)”
“according to a second pressure setting value (P3) in the process container, and a second gas flow rate (11, 20, pg. 3 of translation) into the process container (Fig. 6 and 7) for a second subprocess (APC2 Press), which is performed under the second pressure setting value (P3) and the second gas flow rate(20, substrate processing, top of pg. 4, pg. 7), subsequent to the first subprocess (Fig. 6)”
because it teaches an apparatus with all the necessary parts inherently capable of performing the aforementioned functional language recited by claim 1. Nakaya teaches an apparatus that explicitly performs these functions as set out in the rejection above. The Examiner takes the position that the functional language set out above only receives patentable weight for the structure required to perform the function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “the pressure control device is configured to control the pressure (pressure control, pg. 4) in the process container (5) by adjusting the opening degree (opening degree, pg. 4) of the selected one valve (151a, 151b) during at least one period of a period from a current time until a first specific time arrives and a period from the current time until the pressure detection (pressure) value detected by the pressure detector (17) reaches a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) at the first specific time during the process” because it teaches on pages 4-6 of the translation that the apparatus functions in the manner described above. Therefore the cited prior art performs the functions recited by claim 2. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Nakaya teaches a recipe (recipe step instruction , pg. 4) as a program including a substrate processing procedure is given to the pressure control device (19), and the pressure control device includes a computer that executes substrate processing based on the recipe (bottom of page 3),
wherein the recipe for predetermining the one valve (151a, 151b), which is selected at an arbitrary first time according to a pressure setting value (predetermined pressure) at a second time, which arrives after the first time, is given to the pressure control device, and wherein the one valve (151a, 151b) is selected based on the recipe while processing the substrate (pg. 4, Fig. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Nakaya teaches the pressure control device (19) is configured to set and adjust a conductance of the other valve (152b), which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a state in which the conductance of the other valve (152b) is decreasing toward zero (closed) or a state in which the conductance of the other valve 152b is maintained at zero (closed) during at least one period selected from the group of a period from a current time until a first specific time arrives and a period from the current time until the pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector reaches a pressure setting value at the first specific time during processing (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Nakaya only needs to demonstrate that the apparatus is capable of performing the functions recited by claim 5. The Examiner takes the position that claim 5 is functional language that recites how the apparatus is intended to operate.
Nakaya provides an apparatus that teaches the pressure control device (19) includes:
a first controller (191) configured to automatically adjust a conductance of the first valve (151b, opening degree) based on the pressure detection value and pressure setting value at a second specific time in the at least one period (Fig. 6 and 7);
and a second controller (191) configured to automatically adjust the conductance of the second valve (opening degree) based on the pressure detection value and the pressure setting value at the second specific time in the at least one period (Fig. 6 and 7),
and wherein a controller(192), which corresponds to the non-selected other valve among the first controller and the second controller, fully closes the other valve (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 6, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of performing the following functions: “the recipe includes, for each step included in the substrate processing, a specification for executing any one selected from the group of an execution of a specific opening degree (opening degree), an execution of automatic control by a specific pressure setting value (pg. 4-5), and an execution of automatic control by a specific pressure change rate (1Pa/Se, pg. 4), with respect to each of the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), wherein the specific opening degree (opening degree) includes any one selected from the group of fully closed, fully open, and any opening degree other than fully closed and fully open, and wherein the execution of automatic control by the specific pressure setting value and the execution of automatic control by the specific pressure change rate are specified by one of the first valve and the second valve, for one step (pg. 4-5) because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 7, Nakaya teaches the process container further includes a gas supply device (11) that supplies a gas at a controlled flow rate (20), and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the one valve according to a condition using a combination of the second gas flow rate by the gas supply device and the second pressure setting value (top of page 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nakaya teaches the first valve (151b) has a conductance greater than a maximum conductance of the second valve (151a), and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the second valve (151a).
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of performing the following functions: “when the second pressure setting value (high pressure, S7, fig. 7) is equal to or larger than a predetermined first pressure (0 Pa), and allows the exhaust device to operate at reduced power (no. 7, full close fig. 6) at a time corresponding to the second pressure setting value (S7, fig. 7) when the second pressure setting value (S7, fig. 7) is equal to or larger than a second pressure (P2, fig. 7) that is higher than the first pressure (0 Pa, fig. 7)” because it performs this function and also has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 10, Nakaya teaches the first valve (151b) has a conductance greater than a maximum conductance of the second valve (151a).
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ and wherein the pressure control device (19) selects the first valve (151b) when a coordinate of the combination of the gas flow rate and the pressure setting value is located below a predetermined monotonically increasing curve defined by a coordinate system with a horizontal axis as a gas flow rate and a vertical axis as a pressure” because Nakaya teaches all the structural components (pressure control, mass flow controller, pressure settings) necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 11, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ the monotonically increasing curve is determined based on exhaust characteristics when the first valve (151b) is fully closed and the second valve (151a) is fully opened” because Nakaya has all the structural components necessary for producing the monotonically increased curve. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 12, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ wherein in a step included within a predetermined time from now or a step included at least partially in the predetermined time, the pressure control device (19) selects the one valve according to a rate of a case that a coordinate of a combination of the second gas flow rate and the second pressure setting value is located below a predetermined monotonically increasing curve and a rate of a case that the coordinate is located above the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 13, Nakaya teaches a recipe as a program including a substrate processing procedure is given to the pressure control device, and the pressure control device includes a computer that executes substrate processing based on the recipe, wherein, when the corresponding one valve for each step of substrate processing described as the recipe is selected, the pressure control device does not change the selected one valve to a different valve in the corresponding step (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “ the rate of the case that the coordinate is located above the monotonically increasing curve is lighter weighted than the rate of the case that the coordinate is located below the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function and because claim 14 only involves a recitation of how the apparatus is intended to function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 15, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: ” wherein the rate is weighted by a distance between the coordinate and the monotonically increasing curve” because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 16, The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “wherein in a step included within a predetermined time from now or a step included at least partially in the predetermined time, the pressure control device (19) selects the first valve (151b) when the time at which the coordinate of the combination of the gas flow rate and the pressure setting value is located above the monotonically increasing curve is equal to or less than a predetermined time” because it has all the structural components necessary (pressure control device, and valve) for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Nakaya teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in a substrate processing apparatus including:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed,
an exhaust path (15) that is connected between the process container and an exhaust device and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container (5) and the exhaust device (23),
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the first valve (pg. 4),
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the second valve (pg.4), and
a pressure detector (17) that detects a pressure in the process container (5),
the method, so that a pressure detection value detected by the pressure detector (17) approaches a pressure setting value which is set each time for processing the substrate (Fig. 7) comprising:
selecting one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) to be used in a first subprocess (APC 1 Press), which is performed under a first pressure setting value (P2, pg. 5) in the process container (5) and a first gas flow rate (flow rate of zero) into the process container (5),
according to a second pressure setting value (P3, pg. 7) in the process container (5) and a second gas flow rate (20, flow rate for substrate processing, top of page 4) into the process container (5, pg. 3) for a second subprocess (APC2 Press, Fig. 6; substrate processing pg. 7), which is performed under the second pressure setting value (P3) and the second gas flow rate, subsequent to the first subprocess (APC1 Press, fig. 6); and
setting the opening degree of the other valve, which is not selected among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a), to a constant state (top of page 6, pg. 7),
and adjusting the opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 2nd to last para).
Regarding claim 19, Nakaya teaches a pressure control device provided in a substrate processing apparatus including:
a process container (5) in which a substrate (10) is processed;
an exhaust path (15) that is connected between the process container (5) and an exhaust device (23) and configured to branch into a first exhaust line (13) and a second exhaust line (13a) between the process container (5) and the exhaust device (23);
a first valve (151b) that is installed in the first exhaust line (13) and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the first valve (pg. 3, pg. 4);
a second valve (151a) that is installed in the second exhaust line (13a) and configured to continuously adjust an opening degree of the second valve (pg. 4 and 5);
and a pressure detector (17) that detects a pressure in the process container, the pressure control device comprising:
a main controller (19) configured to, so that a pressure detection value (17, fig. 7) detected by the pressure detector (17) approaches a pressure setting value (Fig. 7) which is set each time for processing the substrate,
select one valve among the first valve (151b) and the second valve (151a) to be used in a first subprocess (APC1 Press), which is performed under a first pressure setting value (P2, bottom of page 5) in the process container (5) and a first gas flow rate (rate of zero) into the process container (5),
according to a second pressure setting value (P3, pg. 7) in the process container (5) for a second subprocess (APC2 Press, fig. 6), which is performed under the second pressure setting value (P3) and the second gas flow rate(20, substrate processing, pg. 7; film formation top of page 4), subsequent to the first subprocess (APC1 Press),
set the opening degree of the other valve, which is not selected among the first valve and the second valve, to a constant state (top of page 6, pg. 7), and
adjust the opening degree of the selected one valve while maintaining the opening degree of the selected one valve to be greater than zero (pg. 3, 2nd to last para; Pg. 6 and 7)).
Regarding claim 20, Nakaya teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform a process comprising the method of Claim 18 (computer equipped with a storage device; top of page 4).
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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2004/0118464) and Lee (US 2012/0160417).
Regarding claim 17, Nakaya teaches wherein the second exhaust line (13a) branches at a substantially right angle in the middle of the first exhaust line (13),
Nakaya does not teach wherein the first valve is configured as a butterfly valve, and wherein the second valve is configured as a poppet valve, wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve provided in series with the first valve, and wherein the pressure control device controls the gate valve to be opened before the first valve initiates a selected step.
Chang teaches a valve is configured as a butterfly valve (93, [0041}, fig. 9), wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve (94) provided in series with the first valve (Fig. 9). Because Chang teaches a butterfly valve is operable in a vacuum apparatus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a butterfly valve and the adjustable valve of Nakaya with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first valve of Nakaya by providing the first valve is configured as a butterfly valve, wherein the substrate processing apparatus further comprising a gate valve provided in series with the first valve, as taught by Chang, because it would provide a value capable of modifying the amount of conductance within the exhaust pipe (Fig. 9) and because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
The Examiner takes the position that the apparatus of Nakaya would be inherently capable of perform the following functions: “and wherein the pressure control device controls the gate valve to be opened before the first valve initiates a selected step because it has all the structural components necessary for performing this function. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Lee teaches that it is well known in the art to use a poppet valve for vacuum apparatus. It teach a valve is configured as a poppet valve (67, 62, 64; [0019], fig. 1). Because Lee teaches a poppet valve is operable in a vacuum apparatus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a butterfly valve and the adjustable valve of Nakaya with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the second valve of Nakaya by providing the second valve is a poppet valve because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Nakaya teaches a diameter of the first exhaust line (13) is larger than the diameter of the second exhaust line (13b, pg. 4 of translation). Nakaya also teaches that degree of opening of the valves 151a, and 151b allow for a greater degree of diameter selection for the vacuum pipes. The Examiner takes the position that in light of Nakaya it would be well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the vacuum arts that the diameter of the vacuum pipes 13 and 13a are variables that effect the rate of pumping of the vacuum chamber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “the first exhaust line diameter is 200 mm, and a diameter of the second exhaust line is 40 mm or more and 180 mm or less” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2004/0118464).
Regarding claim 22, Nakaya teaches a gas supply device (11, 20) configured to supply, to the process container, a gas at flow rates controlled according to the recipe, wherein the recipe includes:
a first exposure step of allowing the gas to flow at a first flow rate to control the pressure detection value (17) to approach a first target value (P3, Fig. 7, pg. 3 of translation, fig. 7);
and a second exposure step of allowing the gas to flow at a second flow rate (11, 20, pg. 3, fig. 7) to control the pressure detection value (17) to approach a second target value (p3) higher than the first target value (P1, Fig. 7),
and wherein the pressure control device (19) is configured to select the first valve (151b) in the first exposure step and select the second valve (151a) in the second exposure step.
Chang teaches an apparatus with a gas supply configured to supply a first gas and a second gas at flow rates [0004])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Nakaya by providing a gas supply configured to supply a first gas and a second gas at flow rates, as taught by Chang, because it would provide the necessary gases for processing the wafer in the reaction chamber ([0004]).
Regarding claim 23, no patentable weight is given to “film forming gas” is used as the first gas and “cleaning gas” is used as the second gas because these are intended uses of the first and second gases. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. Therefore as the cited prior art teaches an apparatus capable of delivering two gases at adjustable flow rates the examiner takes the position that claim 23 is well known.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant submits that Nakaya does not teach the subprocesses of the newly added claim amendments.
The Examiner disagrees because Nakaya teaches the claimed subprocesses.
Applicant argues claim 1 should receive patentable weight for the functioning of the apparatus. The Examiner disagrees because apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. MPEP 2114. The Examiner takes the position that there are no structural differences between the prior art and claim 1 because Nakaya teaches its apparatus performing the claimed subprocesses and because it teaches an apparatus with all the required structural elements for performing the claimed subprocesses.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues that there is no motivation for combining the valve of Lee and Chang with those of Nakaya and it relies on hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here no impermissible hindsight has been used. Butterfly valves and poppet valves are well known in the vacuum arts and using them in a vacuum apparatus would produce expected results.
Regarding claim 21, in response to applicant's argument that Nakaya’s diameter ranges do not recognize the particle generation and process impact constraints addressed by claim 21, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding claim 22, Applicant argues that Chang does not cure the deficiencies of Nakaya as applied to claim 1. The Examiner disagrees because no deficiencies of the rejection of claim 1 have been found.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant argues that the gas selection of claim 23 is not intended use.
The Examiner disagrees because the film-forming gas and cleaning gas are intended uses of the first and second gases. Additionally film forming gas and cleaning gases are materials worked upon by the apparatus and do not receive patentable weight. MPEP 2115.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights