CTFR 18/374,679 CTFR 89831 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicants' amendment of the claims, filed on 03/30/2026, in response to the rejection of claims 1-20 from the non-final office action, mailed on 02/20/2026, by amending claims 1, 4, 12, 19; canceling claims 8-9, 13-15; adding new claims 21-25, is acknowledged and will be addressed below. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim (s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) For the purpose of consistency across the claim list, based on the applicants’ amendment, the “the first surface being in contact” of Claims 1, 12, 19; “the second surface being exposed” of Claim 1; “fixing mechanism being configured” of Claims 1, 12, 19; “gap being formed” of Claims 12, 19; and “without being fixed to” of Claim 24 should be: “the first surface in contact”; “the second surface exposed”; “fixing mechanism configured”; “gap formed”; and “without fixed to” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim interpretation (1) 35 U.S.C. 112(f): 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: -a. The “fixing mechanism” in Claims 1, 12, 15, because of the term “mechanism”, as a substitute for “means”, that is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (1) The new limitations, “(Fig. 10; 24:3-15)” of Claim 21, “(25:7-8)” of Claim 22, “(25:8-9)” of Claim 23, “(23:24-26)” of Claim 24, and “(Figs. 12-13; 26:23-26)” of Claim 25 are not supported by the applicants’ disclosure, thus they are new matters. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-7, 10-12 and 16-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. (1) The “ the first surface has a plurality of flat surfaces ” of Claims 1, 12 and 19 is not clear. Claim 1 recite “each conductive liner having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface”, thus it is considered that each piece of the liner has the first (back) and second (front) surfaces, however, the amended claim 1 is constructed such that each first surface further has plural flat surfaces, in other words, how the “one” surface has additional surfaces? Does it mean plural portions of the one surface? For the purpose of the examination, it will be examined as: “the first surfaces of the plurality of conductive liners are flat surfaces”. (2) Continued from 112 1 st paragraph above, The new limitations, “(Fig. 10; 24:3-15)” of Claim 21, “(25:7-8)” of Claim 22, “(25:8-9)” of Claim 23, “(23:24-26)” of Claim 24, and “(Figs. 12-13; 26:23-26)” of Claim 25 are not clear, because it is not clear what is pursued by the newly added limitations. An appropriate correction is respectfully requested. (3) The “wherein the conductive liner has a plurality of through holes penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, and the fixing mechanism includes a plurality of bolts each inserted into one of the through holes” of Claim 21 is not clear. Does the conductive liner means “a plurality of conductive liners” of Claim 1 or means “each conductive liner”? Similarly, does the fixing mechanism means “a plurality of fixing mechanism” of Claim 1 or means “each fixing mechanism”? For the purpose of examination, it will be examined both. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 10-12 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senzaki (US 20160086773, hereafter ‘773) in view of Tsukada (JP 08148472, hereafter ‘472), Cheng et al. (US 20210262090, hereafter ‘090) and Chae et al. (US 20160013029, hereafter ‘029) . Regarding to Claim 1, ‘773 teaches: Plasma processing apparatus (title, the claimed “A plasma processing apparatus”); the reaction chamber 10 with a surface, for example, made of a conductive material such as alumited (anodized) aluminum (Fig. 1, [0020]), and The reaction chamber 10 is electrically connected to the ground ([0021], the claimed “comprising: a conductive chamber made of a first conductive material and connected to a ground potential”); A first high frequency power source 32 that supplies first high frequency power (high frequency power for generating plasma) of a first frequency ([0026], the claimed “a plasma generator configured to generate a plasma in the conductive chamber”); covering the area A of the inner wall surface of the reaction chamber 10 with the gasifying materials 100, 109 ([0059]) and covering the area A with the gasifying materials 100 and 109 such as silicon or quartz ([0057], note the material can be compatible for both parts, further the two parts 100/109 reads into “plurality”, the claimed “a plurality of conductive liners made of a second conductive material different from the first conductive material and arranged in a circumferential direction in the conductive chamber, each conductive liner having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the first surface being in contact with a sidewall of the conductive chamber, the second surface being exposed to the plasma”); The gasifying material 100 is fixed to the upper electrode 25 in contact with the lower surface of the upper electrode 25 ([0044], note Fig. 1 also shows the gasifying material 109 is attached to the chamber wall, therefore a fixing member for attaching the material plate is intrinsically required. Further, it is commonly well-known in the art that a chamber liner plate is attached to the chamber wall by a bolt, screw, or other known fastener, for instance, see [0041] of US 20060070574, hereafter ‘574, disclosing “Fasteners 70 may be employed to secure the removable liners 66 and may be integral or separate from the walls 68 or the removable liner 66 and may constitute hooks, clips, screws, or any other type fastener capable of securing the removable liner 42 to the reaction chamber walls 68”, the claimed “and a plurality of fixing mechanisms respectively corresponding to the plurality of conductive liners, each fixing mechanism being configured to fix a corresponding conductive liner to the sidewall of the conductive chamber”); Fig. 1 merely shows an outer surface of the side wall gasifying material 109 is attached to an inner surface of the side wall of the chamber 10, thus at least one surface is existed in the outer surface of the side wall gasifying material and another at least one surface is existed in the inner surface of the chamber inner side wall (the claimed “ wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a surface, and the first surface is a surface ”). Again, ‘773 is silent about that the side wall gasifying material 109 is formed of plural pieces, thus ‘773 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of: Claim 1:(1A) a gap being formed between two adjacent conductive liners among the plurality of conductive liners , (1B) wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a plurality of flat surface s , (1C) and the first surface has a plurality of flat surface s . In regards to the limitation of 1A, ‘472 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus ([0001] of English translation). ‘472 teaches the cylindrical inner wall shield 14 according to this embodiment is formed by, for example, six shield pieces 14a as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, and has a fence-like structure as a whole, and a gap (discontinuous portion) 22 in contact with an adjacent shield piece ([0027], note the inner wall shield 14 is formed of pyrolytic carbon which is a conductive material, see [0032]). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the sidewall gasifying material 109 of ‘773, with plural conductive material pieces having a gap at adjacent pieces, for the purpose of easy maintenance, such as simply replacing a damaged piece of the shield, without replacing the whole part. In regards to the limitation of 1B, ‘773 does not explicitly teach a cross-sectional shape of the chamber in a plan view. However, ‘773 further teaches Each of the partition members 201 and 202 is a ring-shaped flat plate. The partition member 201 is provided in the side wall 102 of the reaction chamber 10 ([0039]). Based on the teaching of the “ring-shape” provided along the inner side wall of the chamber of ‘773, it is considered that the inner side wall surface of the chamber of ‘773 has a circular shaped cross-section in the plan view. ‘090 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (abstract). ‘090 teaches the deposition chamber 601 has an inner sidewall 617. The deposition chamber 601 may have a cylindrical shape such that the inner sidewall 617 comprises a portion that is curved, or the inner sidewall 617 may have any other suitable shape, such as a hollow square tube, a hexagonal shape, an octagonal shape, or the like ([0048]). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the inner sidewall of the chamber of ‘773, so to have a circular shape or a polygonal shape, for its suitability as a known chamber shape with predictable result. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.07. Consequently, when the inner side wall of the chamber of ‘773 is modified to have a polygonal shape, the inner surface of the chamber inner sidewall would have a plurality of flat surfaces. Further emphasized, MPEP also clearly guides a change in shape or configuration is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application, see MPEP 2144.04. In regards to the limitation of 1C, First, see the 112 rejection above. Second, note, as discussed in the teaching of 1B above, the inner sidewall of the chamber of ‘773 is modified to have a polygonal shape, in other words, the inner surface of the chamber inner sidewall has plural flat surfaces. Third, Fig. 1 of ‘773 clearly shows the outer surface of the sidewall gasifying material 109 is attached along the inner surface of the sidewall of the chamber 10, and Fig. 1 of ‘472 also clearly shows the outer surface of the inner wall shield 14 is attached along the inner surface of the sidewall of the chamber 11. Therefore, a shape of the outer surface of the chamber liner would have been matched with a shape of the inner surface of the chamber inner sidewall. Consequently, as discussed in the teaching of 1B above, when the inner sidewall of the chamber of ‘773 is modified to have a polygonal shape, in other words, the inner surface of the chamber inner sidewall has plural flat surfaces; Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured the outer surface of the sidewall gasifying material of ‘773, so to be matched with the plural flat surfaces of the chamber inner side wall, for the purpose of firmly attaching through the shape matching. Regarding to Claims 2-4, Figs. 3 and 5 of ‘472 show the shield is formed of 6 pieces or 8 pieces, and the shape of the gap 22 of Figs. 3 and 5 can be interpreted as being both “obliquely with respect to a radial direction” and “a labyrinth-shaped structure having a plurality of folded portions” (the claimed “wherein the gap is formed obliquely with respect to a radial direction” of Claim 2, “wherein the gap has a labyrinth-shaped structure having a plurality of folded portions” of Claim 3, and “wherein the number of the conductive liners is 3 to 30” of Claim 4). Regarding to Claims 5 and 25, As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the side wall gasifying material 109 of Fig. 1 of ‘773 would be attached to the chamber wall by commonly well-known fastener such as a screw. Therefore, the known fastener would be inserted into a through hole, see below showing the “inserted fasteners 70 through a through hole on the liner 66” of Fig. 3a of ‘574. Further, the bolt below can be inserted from outside into inside, therefore, when it is inserted from outside of the chamber, the chamber also has a through hole (the claimed “wherein the conductive liner has a through hole penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, and the fixing mechanism includes at least one bolt inserted into the through hole” of Claim 5, and “wherein the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a through hole penetrating from an outer surface of the sidewall to an inner surface of the sidewall, and the fixing mechanism includes at least one bolt or screw inserted into the fixing mechanism. (Figs. 12-13; 26:23-26)” of Claim 25). PNG media_image1.png 214 259 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding to Claims 6 and 24, ‘773, ‘472 and ‘090 do not explicitly teach the “wherein the through hole is formed substantially at a center of the conductive liner in a horizontal direction” of Claim 6 and “wherein each of the conductive liners is fixed to the sidewall substantially at its center without being fixed to the sidewall at a location distant from the center” of Claim 24. However, when only one fastener is provided for each shield piece, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a center position in a horizontal direction, for the purpose of preventing slanting the shield piece, in other words, for balancing of the shield piece while holding. Further, selection of bolt position at different location is mere rearrangement of part. MPEP2144.04 clearly guides mere rearrangement of part is an obvious matter. Further note, when a center of each piece is used, it reads into the “without being fixed to the sidewall at a location distant from the center”. Regarding to Claim 7, As discussed in the 1B rejection above, the liner (sidewall gasifying materials) of ‘773 has a circular shape, thus the inner surface has a curvature in plan view, and further Figs. 3 and 5 of ‘472 show the inner surface of the shield has a curvature in plan view, thus the inner surface of each piece has a curvature (the claimed “wherein the second surface has a first curvature in plan view”). Regarding to Claim 10, ‘773 teaches the gasifying materials 100 and 109 such as silicon or quartz ([0057], note the materials can be compatible for both parts), and ‘472 also teaches As the material of the inner wall shield 14, aluminum, graphite, amorphous carbon, silicon, or a compound of silicon can be used in addition to pyrolytic carbon ([0038], the claimed “wherein the second conductive material is Si or SiC”). Regarding to Claim 11, ‘773 teaches the reaction chamber 10 with a surface, for example, made of a conductive material such as alumited (anodized) aluminum ([0020], the claimed “wherein the first conductive material is a metal”). Regarding to Claim 12, ‘773 teaches: processing apparatus (title, the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”); the reaction chamber 10 with a surface, for example, made of a conductive material such as alumited (anodized) aluminum (Fig. 1, [0020]), and the reaction chamber 10 is electrically connected to the ground ([0021], the claimed “comprising: a chamber made of a metal and connected to a ground potential”); covering the area A of the inner wall surface of the reaction chamber 10 with the gasifying materials 100, 109 ([0059]) and covering the area A with the gasifying materials 100 and 109 such as silicon or quartz ([0057], note the material can be compatible for both parts, further the two parts reads into “plurality”, the claimed “a plurality of liners made of Si or SiC and arranged in a circumferential direction in the chamber, each liner having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the first surface being in contact with a sidewall of the chamber”); The gasifying material 100 is fixed to the upper electrode 25 in contact with the lower surface of the upper electrode 25 ([0044], note Fig. 1 also shows the gasifying material 109 is attached to the chamber wall, therefore a fixing member for attaching the material plate is intrinsically required. Further, it is commonly well-known that a chamber liner plate is attached to the chamber wall by a bolt, screw, or other known fastener, for instance, see [0041] of ‘574, the claimed “and a plurality of fixing mechanisms respectively corresponding to the plurality of liners, each fixing mechanism being configured to fix a corresponding liner to the sidewall of the chamber”); Fig. 1 merely shows an outer surface of the side wall gasifying material 109 is attached to an inner surface of the side wall of the chamber 10, thus at least one surface is existed in the outer surface of the side wall gasifying material and another at least one surface is existed in the inner surface of the chamber inner side wall (the claimed “ wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a surface, and the first surface is a surface ”). Again, ‘773 is silent about that the side wall gasifying material 109 is formed of plural pieces, thus ‘773 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of: Claim 12:(12A) a gap being formed between two adjacent lines among the plurality of liners , (12B) wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a plurality of flat surface s , (12C) and the first surface has a plurality of flat surface s . The untaught feature of Claim 12 is the same as the claim 1, and the teaching of ‘472 and ‘090 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Therefore, 12A-12C are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above. Regarding to Claims 16-18, Claims 16-18 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 5-7 rejection above. Regarding to Claim 19, ‘773 teaches: processing apparatus (title, the claimed “A substrate processing apparatus”); the reaction chamber 10 with a surface, for example, made of a conductive material such as alumited (anodized) aluminum (Fig. 1, [0020]), and the reaction chamber 10 is electrically connected to the ground ([0021], the claimed “comprising: a chamber made of a conductive material and connected to a ground potential;”); covering the area A of the inner wall surface of the reaction chamber 10 with the gasifying materials 100, 109 ([0059]) and covering the area A with the gasifying materials 100 and 109 such as silicon or quartz ([0057], note the material can be compatible for both parts, further the two parts reads into “plurality”. Lastly, the Si and quartz can be interpreted for both electrically conductive and electrically insulating and further both thermally conductive and insulating, depending on a degree for the “conductive”, the claimed “a plurality of liners made of an insulating material and arranged in a circumferential direction in the chamber, each liner having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the first surface being in contact with a sidewall of the chamber”); The gasifying material 100 is fixed to the upper electrode 25 in contact with the lower surface of the upper electrode 25 ([0044], note Fig. 1 also shows the gasifying material 109 is attached to the chamber wall, therefore a fixing member for attaching the material plate is intrinsically required. Further, it is commonly well-known that a chamber liner plate is attached to the chamber wall by a bolt, screw, or other known fastener, for instance, see [0041] of ‘574, the claimed “and a plurality of fixing mechanism respectively corresponding to the plurality of liners, each fixing mechanism being configured to fix a corresponding liner to the sidewall of the chamber”); Fig. 1 merely shows an outer surface of the side wall gasifying material 109 is attached to an inner surface of the side wall of the chamber 10, thus at least one surface is existed in the outer surface of the side wall gasifying material and another at least one surface is existed in the inner surface of the chamber inner side wall (the claimed “ wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a surface, and the first surface is a surface ”). Again, ‘773 is silent about that the side wall gasifying material 109 is formed of plural pieces, thus ‘773 does not explicitly teach the other limitations (BOLD and ITALIC letter) of: Claim 19:(19A) a gap being formed between two adjacent liners among the plurality of liners , (19B) wherein an inner surface of the sidewall of the conductive chamber has a plurality of flat surface s , (19C) and the first surface has a plurality of flat surface s . The untaught feature of Claim 19 is the same as the claim 1, and the teaching of ‘472 was discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Therefore, it is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 rejection above. Regarding to Claim 20, ‘773 teaches covering the area A with the gasifying materials 100 and 109 such as silicon or quartz ([0057], the claimed “wherein the insulating material is quartz”). Regarding to Claim 21, As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the liner (sidewall gasifying material 109 of ‘773 is modified to be formed with plural pieces, therefore, when the plural pieces are fixed on the chamber sidewall, plural fixing mechanisms including plural holes and bolts would be required (the claimed “wherein the conductive liner has a plurality of through holes penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, and the fixing mechanism includes a plurality of bolts each inserted into one of the through holes. (Fig. 10; 24:3-15)”). Regarding to Claims 22-23, The examiner takes an OFFICIAL NOTICE that a bolt, a screw and a clamp are commonly well-known fasteners, when attaching an object to the other object (the claimed “wherein the fixing mechanism is a screw. (25:7-8)” of Claim 22, and “wherein the fixing mechanism is a clamp. (25:8-9)” of Claim 23). Alternatively, Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘773, ‘472 and ‘090, as being applied to Claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Chae et al. (US 20160013029, hereafter ‘029). Regarding to Claim 7, In case the applicants argue that the inner surface of the chamber wall is modified to have a polygonal shape, and the liner (sidewall gasifying material 109) of ‘773 is also modified to have the polygonal shaped outer surface, thus the inner surface of the line does not have a curvature. ‘029 is analogous art in the field of processing apparatus (abstract). ‘029 teaches the plasma chamber 330 may have the outer wall having an octagonal cross section ([0084]), and an inner wall of the plasma chamber 330 may have a circular cross section ([0086], note Fig. 2 shows the chamber component has a circular shaped inner surface and a polygonal shaped outer surface). Consequently, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, when the outer surface of the line is modified to have a polygonal shape Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have maintained the inner surface of the liner so to have the original circular shape of ‘773, for the purpose of providing the original circular shaped processing space. Response to Arguments 07-37 Applicants’ arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the 35USC103 rejection of the claims 1, 12, 19, the applicants argue that the rejection set forth provides insufficient motivation for one skilled in the art to alter the basic cylindrical structure of the primary reference, see page 8. The argument is found not persuasive. The examiner maintains the motivation is clearly set forth by the examiner, see the rejection above. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AIDEN Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9am-5pm PT. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AIDEN LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 4 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 5 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 6 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 9 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 11 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 12 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 13 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 14 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 15 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 16 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 17 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 18 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 19 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/374,679 Page 20 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights