DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites the term “long” should be changed to “along”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/028881 (reference application) in view of Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1: The reference application in claim 1 recites a lift pin assembly (lift pin) with a an elongated pin body (shaft section) and a pin head (head section). In claim 11 of the reference application it states that the elongate pin body comprises a channel that extends through the bulbous portion.
The reference application fails to recite that the lift pin assembly (lift pin) is within a processing chamber, fails to claim the process chamber, or that the lift pin assembly (lift pin) has an opening within the shaft section.
The prior art of Patalay et al teaches a processing chamber 100 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a chamber body 110; a window (lid 106), the chamber body and the window at least partially defining a processing volume; one or more heat sources (lamps 136, 138, 152, 154) configured to heat the processing volume; a substrate support 123 disposed in the processing volume; and a plurality of lift pin 128 disposed in the processing volume. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al do not have a head section nor that the a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section. See Fig. 1 of Patalay et al below.
PNG
media_image1.png
759
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Patalay et al
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0027] – [0029] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section where the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to specify that a first ratio that is at least 0.3 of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and a second ratio that is at least 0.2 of the second outer dimension of the head section. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the process chamber of Patalay et al to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al (above) as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200. The motivation to optimize the processing chamber of Patalay et al and designing the claimed pins with an opening as suggested in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins used in lift pin assembly of the reference application is designed to include the head section, shaft section, and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al (see Fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image2.png
252
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al
Regarding claim 2: Recall the reference application fails to claim a process chamber and further fails to teach the lift pins of the claims are disposed in openings formed in the substrate support.
Recall the teachings of Patalay et al above.
See above in Fig. 1 of the prior art of Patalay et al where lift pins 128 are disposed in the openings formed in the substrate support 123 and see also [0020] and [0021] of Patalay et al. The motivation to modify the claimed pins of the reference with the pins illustrated in Fig. 2B as suggested by Patalay et al is that the modified pin (with an opening in the shaft section) provides ample support to the wafer and ensures optimal thermal heat transfer and optimal thermal mass by ensure the design includes an opening in the shaft section. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the lift pins of the reference application to provide them with an opening in the shaft section and to provide them within a process chamber and disposed the pins of the reference application in the openings in the substrate support as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 3: Recall the reference application fails to claim the lift pin assembly (lift pins) are provided with a process chamber and further fails to teach the lift pins are such that they are oriented parallel to each other and are spaced apart along a geometric pattern.
Recall the teachings of Patalay et al above.
See Fig. 1 of Patalay et al further teaches lift pins 128 are oriented parallel to each other, and the plurality of lift pins are spaced from each other along a geometric pattern. The motivation to provide the lift pins of the reference application and to modify them as suggested by Patalay et al is that the modified pin (with an opening in the shaft section) provides ample support to the wafer and ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and optimal thermal mass by ensuring that the design includes lift pins are such that they are oriented parallel to each other and are spaced apart along a geometric pattern as suggested by Patalay et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the lift pins of the reference application to provide them ensuring that the design includes lift pins are such that they are oriented parallel to each other and are spaced apart along a geometric pattern as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 11 of the reference application recites a lift pin assembly with a pin head (head section), an elongate pin body (shaft section), and a channel that extends through the bulbous portion.
The reference application fails to recite that the lift pins have an opening is formed in an end face of the shaft section and extending toward the head section.
The prior art of Patalay et al teaches a method and apparatus for improved azimuthal thermal uniformity of a substrate. The prior art of Patalay et teaches a lift pin 206 applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a head section 204; a shaft section 208 extending relative to the head section; and an opening (hollow section 210) formed in an end face of the shaft section and extending toward the head section. See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al. The motivation to modify the lift pin of the reference application to construct it such that the opening is formed in an end face of the shaft section and extending toward the head section is that according to [0027] of Patalay et al the hollow section /opening 210 extending longitudinal along substantially the entire length of the shaft is that this design optimally alters the thermal mass of the lift pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift pin of the reference application to construct it such that the opening is formed in an end face of the shaft section and extending toward the head section as suggested by Patalay et al so that it optimally alters the thermal mass of the pin of the reference application.
Regarding claim 5: Recall the rejection of claim 4 and the teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al were discussed above. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the shaft section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3. Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify that the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3. It would have been obvious to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include shaft section and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al such that that the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3.
Regarding claim 6: The teachings of Patalay et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the head section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2. Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a head section or a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify the head section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2. The motivation to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B of Patalay et al instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins of the reference application would include shaft section with an opening as this optimized lift pin shaft section design as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al such that that the head section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2.
Regarding claim 7: The claims of the reference application were discussed above esp. claim 11. Recall the reference application fails to recite the opening and thus further fails to include a recess extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft section and defining a recessed inner surface at a distance from a support surface of the head section. See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al wherein the opening includes a recess 210 extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft section 208 and defining a recessed inner surface at a distance from a support surface of the head section. See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al. See [0026]-[0028]. The motivation to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B of Patalay et al instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the pins of the reference application as modified by the opening with a recess as suggested by Patalay et al to optimize thermal heat transfer and thermal mass as noted by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 8: The teachings of Patalay et al were discussed above. See the rejection of claim 7 above. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the lift pin of claim 7, wherein the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less.
Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a head section and shaft section with an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less. The motivation to use the design of pin 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B of Patalay et al instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include shaft section and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al (Fig. 2B) such that that the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less to optimize thermal heat transfer and thermal mass as noted by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 9: The reference application claims the cap comprises glassy carbon see claim 6. See claim 9 where the top surface of the lift pin assembly comprises a layer of glassy carbo. The reference application fails to claim that the lift pin comprises the shaft section and the head section include glassy carbon. See in Patalay et al where the lift pins those illustrated in Figs. 2A-E comprise glassy carbon see the [0026] and claim 9 of Patalay et al. The motivation to construct the lift pin of the reference application with the suggested material of construction as glassy carbon is a preferred materials of construction of the lift pin as Patalay et al suggested in [0026] has a low thermal mass which provides the optimal chemical and physical properties desired for the lift pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin of the reference application as modified by an opening in the shaft section with the materials of construction as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 10: The teachings of reference application were discussed above. The reference application fails to teach a second opening formed in a support surface of the head section and extending toward the shaft section.
The prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the head can have a number of configurations, see [0028] of Patalay et al. See also [0029] where Patalay et al teaches that the lift pin head is in contact with the wafer and the configuration of the head including its geometry (such designing the pin to have a second opening) controls the surface area in contact with the substrate. The design of the lift pins to include the design of the shaft and pin head are a matter of optimization that could be determined without undue routine experimentation. It is noted that that an opening in the shaft is advantageous and it would be obvious to also modify the pin head with a second opening with a reasonable expectation of success as the head opening would facilitate reducing azimuthal temperature non-uniformity in the substrate proximate a portion of the substrate contacted by, and/or proximate to the lift pins such as the pin head. The motivation to provide a second opening in the support surface of the head section of the reference application would further facilitate thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and the backside of the wafer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lift pin of the reference application with the suggestion of Patalay et al with a second opening formed in a support surface of the head section and extending toward the shaft section as this head configuration would further facilitate thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and the backside of the wafer.
Regarding claim 11: See the rejection of claim 4 and Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the illustration of the wall. The modification of the lift pin of the reference application with the suggestion of the prior art of Patalay et al with a lift pin having the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a ratio of a dimension of the opening, and the ratio is 1.15 or less. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to include the thickness of the wall and opening to ensure the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of the reference application with the lift pins of Patalay et al to ensure that the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a ratio of a dimension of the opening, and the ratio is 1.15 or less in order to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 12: See the rejection of claim 4 and Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the illustration of the wall. The lift pin of the reference application as modified by the teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, and a thickness of the wall is within a range of 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to include the thickness of the wall and opening to ensure the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of the reference application with the lift pin design of Patalay et al to ensure that the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, the thickness of the wall is within a range of 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 13: See the rejection of claim 4 and Fig. 2B of Patalay et al. The lift pin of the reference application as modified by the prior art of Patalay et al were discussed above. See Patalay et al describes that the hollow recess 210 extends longitudinal along the entire length of the shaft 208 and is thus interpreted the suggestion of a hollow recess extending along the entire length of the shaft 208. The motivation to design the reference application with the opening being a through-hole extending from the end face of the shaft section and to a support surface of the head section is that this is an optimized design choice for the lift pin with a through hole as the design facilitates reducing azimuthal temperature non-uniformity in the substrate proximate a portion of the substrate contacted by, and/or proximate to the lift pin as suggested by Patalay et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of the reference application with the lift pin design of Patalay et al to ensure that the lift pin with a through hole as the design facilitates reducing azimuthal temperature non-uniformity in the substrate proximate a portion of the substrate contacted by, and/or proximate to the lift pin as suggested by Patalay et al
Claims 14 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/028881 (reference application) in view of Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784) as applied to claims 1-13 above and in further view of Paik (US 7,081,165).
Regarding claim 14: Claim 1 of the reference application recites a lift pin assembly with an elongated pin body made of a first material and a pin head made of a second material where the first material is different from the second material. Recall the lift pin assembly (lift pin) of the reference application comprises an elongate pin body (shaft section) and a pin head (head section). The lift pin of the reference application fails to teach that an opening is formed in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. It would have been obvious to modify the pins of the reference application by providing an opening in the shaft section as illustrated in the Figs. 2B of Patalay et al to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins (lift pin assembly of the reference application) is designed to include the head section, shaft section, and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al.
Note Patalay et al teaches that the pins are made of one or more of the materials, such that the pin resulting from the claims of the reference application and the prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the shaft section comprising a second material that has a different composition than the first material of the head section.
The prior art of Paik et al teaches center pins 42 for lifting substrate 37. See Figs. 9 and 10 below. See the center pin 42 has a head section 53 and a shaft section 54. See col. 4 lines 7-48 of Paik where the head section 53 which includes a conductive segment 53a formed of aluminum and an insulating segment 53d made of aluminum oxide. The prior art of Paik et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the reference application and the prior art of Patalay et al to ensure they are constructed of materials with the optimal physical and/or chemical properties that are constructed such that that the pins have a shaft section made of a material of construction and the head section is made of another different material of construction as taught by the prior art of Paik.
Regarding claim 15: Recall the rejection of claim 14 and see claim 3 of the reference application where it is recited that the second material of the pin head has a thermal conductivity of about four to eight times of the first material of the pin body (shaft section).
PNG
media_image3.png
790
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs 9 and 10 of Paik et al
Claim 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/028881 (reference application) in view of Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784) and Paik as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and in further view of Yoon et al (US 2018/0053683).
Regarding claim 16: See claim 6 of the reference application where the cap (head section) comprises glassy carbon. The claims of the reference application as modified by Patalay et al and Paik were discussed above. It is noted that claim 9 of the reference application recites the top surface comprise a layer of glassy carbon and the leg comprises quartz and claim 12 of the reference application recites the first material is selected from quartz and silicon carbon. The lift pin resulting from the combined teachings of the claims of the present application, Patalay et al, and Paik fails to teach the coating includes silicon carbide (SiC) or quartz.
The prior art of Yoon et al teaches a lift pin and the method for manufacturing the lift pin. See [0052] and [0058] where the pin 700 is formed of glassy carbon and that the pin can be coated with a ceramic material of silicon carbide (SiC). The prior art of Yoon et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties to suppress heat loss from the pins due to low heat conductivity as suggested by Yoon et al to construct the pins resulting from the claims of the reference application and teachings of Patalay et al and Paik.
Regarding claim 17: The rejection of claim 16 was discussed above. The combined teachings of the claims of the reference application, the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik were discussed above fails to teach that that coating includes silicon carbide (SiC) or quartz. The prior art of Yoon et al teaches a lift pin and the method for manufacturing the lift pin. See [0052] and [0058] of Yoon et al where the pin 700 is formed of glassy carbon and that the pin can be coated with a ceramic material of silicon carbide (SiC). The prior art of Yoon et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) resulting from the claims of the reference application, the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties to suppress heat loss from the pins due to low heat conductivity as suggested by Yoon et al.
Regarding claim 18: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting the combined teachings of the claims of the reference application, the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik. The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the shaft section has a first outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a first ratio of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and the first ratio is at least 0.3. Recall the prior art of Patalay et al teaches in [0027] – [0029]. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafer and optimal thermal mass and thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al as modified by the pins of two different materials of construction as taught by Paik to ensure that the shaft section has a first outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a first ratio of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and the first ratio is at least 0.3.
Regarding claim 19: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting the claims of the reference application and the combined teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik . The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al which teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized so that the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2 which ensures that the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of the reference application as combined with the teachings of Patalay et al to ensure that the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2 to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 20: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting from the reference application and the combined teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik. The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a third ratio of the dimension of the opening, and the third ratio is 1.15 or less. Recall the prior art of Patalay et al teaches in [0027] – [0029]. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafer and optimal thermal mass and thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of the reference application as modified by the pins of two different materials of construction as taught by Paik to ensure the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a third ratio of the dimension of the opening, and the third ratio is 1.15 or less.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Patalay et al teaches a processing chamber 100 applicable for use in semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a chamber body 110; a window, the chamber body and the window (lid 106) at least partially defining a processing volume; one or more heat sources (lamps 152) configured to heat the processing volume; a substrate support 123 disposed in the processing volume; and a plurality of lift pin 128 disposed in the processing volume. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a head section nor that the a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify that a first ratio that is at least 0.3 of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and a second ratio that is at least 0.2 of the second outer dimension of the head section. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include the head section, shaft section, and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 2: The processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lift pins 128 are disposed in openings formed in the substrate support. 123 see Fig. 1 above and [0020], [0021] of Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 3: The processing chamber of claim 1, wherein the shaft sections 126 of the plurality of lift pins 128 are oriented parallel to each other, and the plurality of lift pins are spaced from each other long a geometric pattern. See Fig. 1 of Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 4: Recall the rejection of claim 1. See the prior art of Patalay et teaches a lift pin 206 applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a head section 204; a shaft section 208 extending relative to the head section; and an opening (hollow recess 210) formed in an end face of the shaft section and extending toward the head section. See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 5: The teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al were discussed above. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the lift pin of claim 4, wherein the shaft section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3. Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify that the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3. It would have been obvious to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include shaft section and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al such that that the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the shaft section, and the ratio is at least 0.3.
Regarding claim 6: The teachings of Patalay et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the head section of the lift pin has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2.
Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a head section or a shaft section has an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify the head section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2. It would have been obvious to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include shaft section and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al such that that the head section has an outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a ratio of the outer dimension of the head section, and the ratio is at least 0.2.
Regarding claim 7: See the rejection of claim 4 where the opening includes a recess 210 extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft section 208 and defining a recessed inner surface at a distance from a support surface of the head section. See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and [0026]-[0028].
Regarding claim 8: The teachings of Patalay et al were discussed above. See the rejection of claim 7 above.
The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach: The lift pin of claim 7, wherein the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less. Namely the lift pins 128 of Patalay et al are taught to comprises a shaft section 126. The lift pins 128 of Patalay et al does not have a head section and shaft section with an opening in the shaft section.
See Fig. 2B of Patalay et al which according to [0028] illustrates a lift pin 200 with a shaft section 208, head section 204, and an opening 210 in the shaft section. See in Fig.2B of Patalay et al above that the shaft section has a first outer diameter, the head section has a second outer diameter, and that the opening has a dimension. The illustration in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the description of the pin 200 in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al fail to specify the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less. It would have been obvious to use pins 200 as illustrated in Figs. 2B instead of pins 128 in the process chamber illustrated in Fig. 1 of Patalay et al as the dimensions of the shaft section, head section, and opening of the pin 200 of Patalay et al would have been optimized without undue routine experimentation to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafter while ensuring the optimal thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and backside of the substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the dimensions of the lift pins to include shaft section and opening are optimized as suggested by the prior art of Patalay et al such that that the distance is a ratio of a length of the lift pin, and the ratio is 0.05 or less.
Regarding claim 9: The lift pin of claim 8, wherein the shaft section and the head section include glassy carbon. See in Patalay et al where the lift pins those illustrated in Figs. 2A-E comprise glassy carbon see the [0026] and claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: The teachings of Patalay et al were discussed above. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach a second opening formed in a support surface of the head section and extending toward the shaft section.
The prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the head can have a number of configurations, see [0028] of Patalay et al. See also [0029] where Patalay et al teaches that the lift pin head is in contact with the wafer and the configuration of the head including its geometry (such designing the pin to have a second opening) controls the surface area in contact with the substrate. The design of the lift pins to include the design of the shaft and pin head are a matter of optimization that could be determined without undue routine experimentation. It is noted that that an opening in the shaft is advantageous and it would be obvious to also modify the pin head with a second opening with a reasonable expectation of success as the head opening would facilitate reducing azimuthal temperature non-uniformity in the substrate proximate a portion of the substrate contacted by, and/or proximate to the lift pins such as the pin head. The motivation to provide a second opening in the support surface of the head section would further facilitate thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and the backside of the wafer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lift pin of Patalay et al with a second opening formed in a support surface of the head section and extending toward the shaft section as this head configuration would further facilitate thermal heat transfer between the head of the lift pin and the backside of the wafer.
Regarding claim 11: See the rejection of claim 4 and Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the illustration of the wall. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the lift pin of claim 4, wherein the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a ratio of a dimension of the opening, and the ratio is 1.15 or less. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to include the thickness of the wall and opening to ensure the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al to ensure that the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a ratio of a dimension of the opening, and the ratio is 1.15 or less in order to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 12: See the rejection of claim 4 and Fig. 2B of Patalay et al and the illustration of the wall. The prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the opening at least partially defines
a wall of the shaft section, and a thickness of the wall is within a range of 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to include the thickness of the wall and opening to ensure the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al to ensure that the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, the thickness of the wall is within a range of 0.1 mm to 1.7 mm to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 13: The lift pin of claim 4, wherein the opening is a through-hole extending from the end face of the shaft section and to a support surface of the head section. See Patalay et al describes that the hollow recess 210 extends longitudinal along the entire length of the shaft 208.
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784) in Paik (US 7,081,165).
Regarding claim 14: Recall the teachings of Patalay et al where lift pin 200 applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a head section comprising a first material; a shaft section extending relative to the head section. The lift pin as illustrated in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al teaches an opening formed in the shaft section. The prior art of Patalay et al teaches the pins are made of at least one of glassy carbon, quartz, or alumina see [0026] of Patalay et al materials low thermal mass or materials of high thermal mass such as at least one silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or the life. Note Patalay et al teaches that the pins are made of one or more of the materials, but fails to specifically teach that the prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the shaft section comprising a second material that has a different composition than the first material of the head section.
The prior art of Paik et al teaches center pins 42 for lifting substrate 37. See Figs. 9 and 10. See the center pin 42 has a head section 53 and a shaft section 54. See col. 4 lines 7-48 of Paik where the head section 53 which includes a conductive segment 53a formed of aluminum and an insulating segment 53d made of aluminum oxide. The prior art of Paik et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties such the pins of Patalay et al are constructed such that that the pins have a shaft section made of a material of construction and the head section is made of another different material of construction as taught by the prior art of Paik.
Note Patalay et al teaches that the pins are made of one or more of the materials, but fails to specifically teach that the prior art of Patalay et al fails to teach the shaft section comprising a second material that has a different composition than the first material of the head section.
The prior art of Paik et al teaches center pins 42 for lifting substrate 37. See Figs. 8 -10. See the center pin 42 has a head section 53 and a shaft section 54. See col. 4 lines 7-48 of Paik where the head section 53 which includes a conductive segment 53a formed of aluminum and an insulating segment 53d made of aluminum oxide. The prior art of Paik et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties such the pins of Patalay et al are constructed such that that the pins have a shaft section made of a material of construction and the head section is made of another different material of construction as taught by the prior art of Paik.
Regarding claim 15: Recall the teachings of Patalay et al where lift pin 200 applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a head section comprising a first material; a shaft section extending relative to the head section. The lift pin as illustrated in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al teaches an opening formed in the shaft section. The prior art of Patalay et al teaches the pins are made of at least one of glassy carbon, quartz, or alumina see [0026] of Patalay et al materials low thermal mass or materials of high thermal mass such as at least one silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or the life. Note Patalay et al teaches that the pins are made of one or more of the materials, but fails to specifically teach that the second material has a lower thermal conductivity than the first material the shaft section comprising a second material that has a different composition than the first material of the head section.
The prior art of Paik et al teaches center pins 42 for lifting substrate 37. See Figs. 8 -10. See the center pin 42 has a head section 53 and a shaft section 54. See col. 4 lines 7-48 of Paik where the head section 53 which includes a conductive segment 53a formed of aluminum and an insulating segment 53d made of aluminum oxide. Paik et al also teaches the shaft section 56 is made of aluminum. The prior art of Paik et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties such the pins of Patalay et al are constructed such that that the pins have a shaft section made of a material of construction and the head section is made of another different material of construction as taught by the prior art of Paik and further that the second material has a lower thermal conductivity than the first material.
Regarding claim 16: Recall the teachings of Patalay et al where lift pin 200 applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a head section comprising a first material; a shaft section extending relative to the head section. The lift pin as illustrated in Fig. 2B of Patalay et al teaches an opening formed in the shaft section. The prior art of Patalay et al teaches the pins are made of at least one of glassy carbon, quartz, or alumina see [0026] of Patalay et al materials low thermal mass or materials of high thermal mass such as at least one silicon carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or the life. Note Patalay et al teaches that the pins are made of a first material which includes glassy carbon and a coating disposed on a support surface of the head section.
The prior art of Paik et al teaches center pins 42 for lifting substrate 37. See Figs. 8 -10. See the center pin 42 has a head section 53 and a shaft section 54. See col. 4 lines 7-48 of Paik where the head section 53 which includes a conductive segment 53a formed of aluminum and an insulating segment 53b (coating) made of aluminum oxide and the shaft section 56 made of aluminum. The prior art of Paik et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) 200 of Patalay et al with the pins of two different materials of construction as taught by Paik which include a coating as suggested by Paik to optimize the thermal heat transfer of the pins to the substrate.
Regarding claim 18: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting the combined teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik. The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the shaft section has a first outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a first ratio of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and the first ratio is at least 0.3. Recall the prior art of Patalay et al teaches in [0027] – [0029]. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafer and optimal thermal mass and thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al as modified by the pins of two different materials of construction as taught by Paik to ensure that the shaft section has a first outer dimension and the opening has a dimension that is a first ratio of the first outer dimension of the shaft section, and the first ratio is at least 0.3.
Regarding claim 19: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting the combined teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik . The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2. See [0027] – [0029] of Patalay et al which teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized so that the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2 which ensures that the optimal thermal heat transfer is provided between the pin and substrate and to ensure the optimal thermal mass of the pin. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al to ensure that the head section has a second outer dimension and the dimension of the opening is a second ratio of the second outer dimension of the head section, and the second ratio is at least 0.2 to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer and thermal mass of the pin as suggested by Patalay et al.
Regarding claim 20: Recall the rejection of claim 14 above. The apparatus resulting the combined teachings of the prior art of Patalay et al and Paik. The prior art of lift pin fails to specifically teach the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a third ratio of the dimension of the opening, and the third ratio is 1.15 or less. Recall the prior art of Patalay et al teaches in [0027] – [0029]. Therein the prior art of Patalay et al teaches that the dimensions of the pin 200 are optimized to ensure the pin provides ample support to the wafer and optimal thermal mass and thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the pin(s) of Patalay et al as modified by the pins of two different materials of construction as taught by Paik to ensure the opening at least partially defines a wall of the shaft section, a thickness of the wall is a third ratio of the dimension of the opening, and the third ratio is 1.15 or less.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patalay et al (US 2010/0086784) in Paik (US 7,081,165) as applied to 14-16 and 18-20 above, and in further view of Yoon et al (US 2018/0053683).
The combined teachings of Patalay et al and Paik were discussed above. The lift pin resulting from the combined teachings of Patalay et al and Paik fails to teach that that coating includes silicon carbide (SiC) or quartz. The prior art of Yoon et al teaches a lift pin and the method for manufacturing the lift pin. See [0052] and [0058] pf Yoon et al where the pin 700 is formed of glassy carbon and that the pin can be coated with a ceramic material of silicon carbide (SiC). The prior art of Yoon et al teaches that the choice of material of construction of the pin is a matter of optimization to ensure that pin is constructed of material to ensure optimal thermal heat transfer. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the lift pin(s) to ensure they are constructed of the optimal physical and/or chemical properties to suppress heat loss from the pins due to low heat conductivity as suggested by Yoon et al to construct the pins of Patalay et al as modified by the teachings of Paik.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR10-0551445 teaches a plurality of LCD panel support pins 34 with a through hole 34a.
Kwon (US 2005/0284577) teachesa plurality of support pins 205 where each pin includes a through hole 206 see [0036] and Fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716