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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the reply filed on April 23, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 23, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method of processing epitaxial semiconductor wafers by modulating at least one of a first and second gas flow rate to control a deposition rate near a peripheral edge of the epitaxial semiconductor wafers
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 12 recites that modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate increases the deposition rate near peripheral edge regions of the wafer located a greater distance (i.e., a maximum distance) from the sidewall. However, the specification as well as the claims (see, e.g., claim 5) teach that it is preferable to reduce the growth rate in edge regions where the wafer is located a greater distance from the sidewall in order to produce a more uniform film thickness. Thus, the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide antecedent basis for the language of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “a semiconductor wafer” in l. 2 and l. 5. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the “semiconductor wafers” recited in l. 1 of the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the semiconductor wafers.” Dependent claims 2 and 5-12 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wafer" in l. 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the semiconductor wafers.” It is also noted that each subsequent recitation of “the wafer” in claim 1 and in the dependent claims should be similarly corrected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sidewall" in l. 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the downwardly depending sidewall.” It is also noted that each subsequent recitation of “the sidewall” in claim 1 and in the dependent claims should be similarly corrected.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-16 recite, inter alia, modulating the gas flow rate “near the peripheral edge of the wafer.” In this case the term “near” in claims 1, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since neither the claims nor the specification as originally filed teach or suggest how close to the peripheral edge of the wafer the deposition rate must be modulated in order for it to be considered as “near the peripheral edge of the wafer” its recitation in claims 1, 5-7, 10-13, and 15-16 is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “a semiconductor wafer” in l. 2 and l. 4. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the “semiconductor wafers” recited in l. 1 of the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the semiconductor wafers.” Dependent claims 14-16 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the wafer" in l. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the semiconductor wafers.” It is also noted that each subsequent recitation of “the wafer” in claim 15 and in the dependent claims should be similarly corrected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sidewall" in ll. 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the downwardly depending sidewall.” It is also noted that each subsequent recitation of “the sidewall” in claim 13 and in the dependent claims should be similarly corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Appl. Publ. No. JP 2016-213242-A to Takaki Wajima (hereinafter “Wajima”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0137801 to Lau, et al. (“Lau”).
Regarding claim 1, Wajima teaches a method of processing semiconductor wafers within a heated chamber that includes a susceptor for supporting a semiconductor wafer, the susceptor having a front surface and a recess defined in the front surface by a downwardly depending sidewall (see Figs. 1-3 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4 which teach an embodiment of a method of processing a semiconductor wafer (W) within a reaction furnace (2) where the wafer (W) is supported by a susceptor (3) having a counterbore portion (3a) in the front surface which includes an inner wall (3a1)), the method comprising:
placing a semiconductor wafer in the recess of the susceptor (see Figs. 1-2, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4, and the Examples which teach placing a semiconductor wafer (W) in the counterbore portion (3a) of the susceptor (3));
determining a distance of a peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-6, and the Examples which teach using a camera (12a) and a computer (13) to measure a width (W1) of the gap (S) between a peripheral edge of the wafer (W) and the sidewall (3a1) of the susceptor (3));
supplying a first process gas into the heated chamber at a first gas flow rate in a first gas direction and a second process gas into the heated chamber at a second gas flow rate in a second gas direction (see Figs. 1-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4, and the Examples which teach supplying a first process gas (G) through an upper gas supply pipe (6a1) at a first gas flow rate and in a first direction from a gas supply unit (6) and supplying an inert gas through a lower gas supply pipe (6a2) at a second gas flow rate and in a second direction from the gas supply unit (6));
supplying heat to the heated chamber to induce deposition of the first process gas onto a surface of the wafer (see Figs. 1-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4, and the Examples which teach that the wafer (W) is heated via lamps (8) to induce deposition onto a surface of the wafer (W)); and
modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to control a deposition rate of the first and second process gases near the peripheral edge of the wafer based on the determined distance of the peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall (see Figs. 1-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8, and the Examples which teach that the computer (13) calculates the positional deviance (D1) of the substrate (W) from the center (C) of the counterbore (3a) and adjusts the growth conditions, including the flow rate of the source gas through the upper gas supply pipe (6a), in order to produce a more uniform deposition rate across the entire surface of the substrate (W), including near the outer periphery (P) of the substrate (W)).
Wajima does not teach that the second process gas is supplied into the heated chamber at a second gas flow rate in a second gas direction that intersects the first gas direction to induce deposition onto a surface of the wafer. However, in Figs. 1-6 and ¶¶[0024]-[0048] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Lau teaches an analogous system and method for depositing an epitaxial layer onto a substrate (123) provided on a susceptor (124) within a process chamber (100). In Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0024]-[0037] Lau specifically teaches that the process chamber (100) includes a first injector (180) which supplies a first process gas over the substrate (123) in a first direction (208) and a second injector (170) which supplies a second process gas over the substrate (123) in a second direction (216) which intersects the first gas direction (208) to induce deposition onto the substrate (123). The second injector (170) may be used in conjunction with a high flow velocity outlet port (302) to deliver, for example, gases that have non-uniform growth rates. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a second gas injector to supply a second process gas into the heated chamber at a second flow rate in a second direction that intersects the first gas direction in order to, for example, obtain greater composition control, in-wafer uniformity, and runt-to-run reproducibility of the deposited epitaxial thin film.
Regarding claim 2, Wajima teaches determining at least one of a minimum distance of the peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall and a maximum distance of the peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall (see Figs. 2B-C and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 which teach that the largest (W1) and smallest distance between the edge of the wafer (W) and a sidewall (3a1) of the counterbore (3a) is measured in order to determine the direction and magnitude of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a)).
Regarding claim 5, Wajima teaches modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to increase flow interaction between the first process gas and the second process gas near a peripheral edge region of the wafer that defines the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Regarding claim 6, Wajima teaches modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to reduce flow interaction between the first process gas and the second process gas near a peripheral edge region of the wafer that defines the maximum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W) which will necessarily cause a reduction in flow interaction between the first and second process gases near a peripheral edge of the wafer that defines (W1); see specifically the second full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the process gas flow rate is reduced as the outer peripheral portion (P1) of the substrate (W) corresponding to (W1) approaches the upstream side of the source gas by rotation of the susceptor (3)).
Regarding claim 7, Wajima teaches rotating the wafer during the supplying the first and second process gases, wherein the modulating the at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate is synchronized with a wafer rotational speed to control the deposition rate of the first and second process gases near the peripheral edge of the wafer based on the determined distance of the peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the susceptor (3) is rotated during film growth and that the flow rate of the process gas is changed as the susceptor (3) is rotated based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the second full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the process gas flow rate is reduced as the outer peripheral portion (P1) of the substrate (W) corresponding to (W1) approaches the upstream side of the source gas by rotation of the susceptor (3)).
Regarding claim 8, Wajima teaches that the first process gas comprises a deposition precursor gas (see at least the Example at p. 8 which teaches flowing a deposition precursor gas as the first process gas in order to deposit an epitaxial layer), but does not teach that the second process gas comprises an etchant gas. However, in ¶[0049] Lau specifically teaches that selective epitaxial growth of the layer may be performed by using deposition and etch gases from either or both of the first (180) and second (170) injectors. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an etchant gas as a precursor gas through the second injector (170) in the method of Wajima and Lau in order to selectively control the film thickness during epitaxial growth.
Regarding claim 9, Wajima teaches determining a minimum distance of the peripheral edge of the wafer from the sidewall (see Figs. 2B-C and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 which teach that the largest (W1) and smallest distance between the edge of the wafer (W) and a sidewall (3a1) of the counterbore (3a) is measured in order to determine the direction and magnitude of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a)).
Regarding claim 10, Wajima teaches modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to increase flow of the deposition precursor gas near a peripheral edge region of the wafer that defines the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Regarding claim 11, Wajima teaches modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to decrease flow of the gas near a peripheral edge region of the wafer that defines the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Wajima does not teach modulating the gas flow rate by decreasing the flow of the etchant gas. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 8, in ¶[0049] Lau specifically teaches that selective epitaxial growth of the layer may be performed by using deposition and etch gases from either or both of the first (180) and second (170) injectors. Thus, a PHOSITA would recognize that an increase in the growth rate in the method of Wajima may also be achieved via a corresponding reducing in the flow of the etchant gas as this achieves the same net effect. Stated in other words, an increase (or decrease) in the deposition rate may be achieved by either increasing or decreasing the ratio of the precursor flow rate to the etchant flow rate. Accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an etchant gas as a precursor gas through the second injector (170) in the method of Wajima and Lau and would produce the required increase in growth rate by decreasing the flow of the etchant gas in order to selectively control the film thickness during epitaxial growth such that a more uniform film is deposited.
Regarding claim 12, Wajima teaches that the modulating the at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate selectively increases the deposition rate of the first and second process gases near peripheral edge regions of the wafer (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W)), but does not teach that the deposition rate is increased near peripheral edge regions of the wafer located a relatively greater distance from the sidewall. However, since the flow rate of the first and second precursor gases determines the increase in thickness observed near peripheral edge regions of the wafer, they are considered to be a result-effective variables, i.e., variables which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine how much the first and second gas flow rates near peripheral edge regions of the wafer located a greater distance from the sidewall need to be increased in order to, for example, produce an increase in the dopant concentration or an increase in thickness necessary to produce the desired concentration or thickness profile for a particular application.
Regarding claim 13, Wajima teaches a method of processing semiconductor wafers within a heated chamber that includes a susceptor for supporting a semiconductor wafer, the susceptor having a front surface and a recess defined in the front surface by a downwardly depending sidewall (see Figs. 1-3 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4 which teach an embodiment of a method of processing a semiconductor wafer (W) within a reaction furnace (2) where the wafer (W) is supported by a susceptor (3) having a counterbore portion (3a) in the front surface which includes an inner wall (3a1)), the method comprising:
placing a semiconductor wafer in the recess of the susceptor (see Figs. 1-2, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4, and the Examples which teach placing a semiconductor wafer (W) in the counterbore portion (3a) of the susceptor (3));
determining a peripheral edge region of the wafer that is located a minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-6, and the Examples which teach using a camera (12a) and a computer (13) to measure a width (W1) of the gap (S) between a peripheral edge of the wafer (W) and the sidewall (3a1) of the susceptor (3) which necessarily also determines the edge region where the gap (S) is a minimum);
supplying a first process gas into the heated chamber at a first gas flow rate in a first gas direction (see Figs. 1-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 2-4, and the Examples which teach supplying a first process gas (G) through an upper gas supply pipe (6a) at a first gas flow rate and in a first direction from a gas supply unit (6)); and
modulating at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate to selectively increase a deposition rate of the first and second process gases near the peripheral edge region of the wafer that is located the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 1-3, the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8, and the Examples which teach that the computer (13) calculates the positional deviance (D1) of the substrate (W) from the center (C) of the counterbore (3a) and adjusts the growth conditions, including the flow rate of the source gas through the upper gas supply pipe (6a), in order to increase a deposition rate near the peripheral edge of the wafer that is located the minimum distance from the sidewall and thereby produce a more uniform deposition rate across the entire surface of the substrate (W), including near the outer periphery (P) of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Wajima does not teach that the second process gas is supplied into the heated chamber at a second gas flow rate in a second gas direction that intersects the first gas direction. However, in Figs. 1-6 and ¶¶[0024]-[0048] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Lau teaches an analogous system and method for depositing an epitaxial layer onto a substrate (123) provided on a susceptor (124) within a process chamber (100). In Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0024]-[0037] Lau specifically teaches that the process chamber (100) includes a first injector (180) which supplies a first process gas over the substrate (123) in a first direction (208) and a second injector (170) which supplies a second process gas over the substrate (123) in a second direction (216) which intersects the first gas direction (208) to induce deposition onto the substrate (123). The second injector (170) may be used in conjunction with a high flow velocity outlet port (302) to deliver, for example, gases that have non-uniform growth rates. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize a second gas injector to supply a second process gas into the heated chamber at a second flow rate in a second direction that intersects the first gas direction in order to, for example, obtain greater composition control, in-wafer uniformity, and runt-to-run reproducibility of the deposited epitaxial thin film.
Regarding claim 14, Wajima teaches that the first process gas comprises a deposition precursor gas (see at least the Example at p. 8 which teaches flowing a deposition precursor gas as the first process gas in order to deposit an epitaxial layer), but does not teach that the second process gas comprises an etchant gas. However, in ¶[0049] Lau specifically teaches that selective epitaxial growth of the layer may be performed by using deposition and etch gases from either or both of the first (180) and second (170) injectors. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an etchant gas as a precursor gas through the second injector (170) in the method of Wajima and Lau in order to selectively control the film thickness during epitaxial growth.
Regarding claim 15, Wajima teaches that the modulating the at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate comprises increasing a flow rate of the deposition precursor gas near the peripheral edge region of the wafer that is located the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Regarding claim 16, Wajima teaches that the modulating the at least one of the first gas flow rate and the second gas flow rate comprises decreasing a flow rate of the gas near the peripheral edge region of the wafer that is located the minimum distance from the sidewall (see Figs. 2-4 and the Description of Embodiments section at pp. 4-8 as well as the Examples which teach that the flow rate of the source gas is changed (i.e., it is increased) based on the magnitude and direction of the offset (D1) between the center of the substrate (C1) and the center (C) of the counterbore part (3a) in order to increase the uniformity of the growth rate in the circumferential direction of the substrate (W); see specifically the first full paragraph on p. 7 which teaches that the flow rate of the source gas is increased as the outer peripheral position (P1) is separated from the upstream side).
Wajima does not teach modulating the gas flow rate by decreasing the flow of the etchant gas. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 8, in ¶[0049] Lau specifically teaches that selective epitaxial growth of the layer may be performed by using deposition and etch gases from either or both of the first (180) and second (170) injectors. Thus, a PHOSITA would recognize that an increase in the growth rate in the method of Wajima may also be achieved via a corresponding reducing in the flow of the etchant gas as this achieves the same net effect. Stated in other words, an increase (or decrease) in the deposition rate may be achieved by either increasing or decreasing the ratio of the precursor flow rate to the etchant flow rate. Accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize an etchant gas as a precursor gas through the second injector (170) in the method of Wajima and Lau and would produce the required increase in growth rate by decreasing the flow of the etchant gas in order to selectively control the film thickness during epitaxial growth such that a more uniform film is deposited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights