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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) in view of Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1). Huang teaches a substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising: a first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3); a ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) disposed inwardly of the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3), the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) orientated at a first oblique angle (first oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A1) relative to a plane of a lower end of the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3); a pocket defining a pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) that is disposed inwardly of the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3); a plurality of first flow openings (122; Figure 3,11A-Applicant’s 211; Figure 3) extending into the pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3); a plurality of second flow openings (168; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 212; Figure 3) extending into the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), the plurality of second flow openings (168; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 212; Figure 3) orientated at a second oblique angle (second oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A2) relative to a plane of a lower end of the pocket – claim 1
Huang further teaches:
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 7, wherein the first flow openings (122; Figure 3,11A-Applicant’s 211; Figure 3) are disposed along a plurality of rows (Figure 10B), as claimed by claim 8
Huang does not teach:
a plurality of third flow openings (Applicant’s 213; Figure 3) extending into the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) – claim 1
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 1, wherein the oblique angle is 20º or higher, as claimed by claim 5
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 5, wherein the second oblique angle (second oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A2) is within a range of 50º to 60º, as claimed by claim 6
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 1, wherein the second flow openings (168; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 212; Figure 3) and the third flow openings (Applicant’s 213; Figure 3) are respectively disposed along a circular row, as claimed by claim 7
Park also teaches a substrate support (44,30; Figure 1, 5A) including flow openings (40a,c,d; Figure 5A-C-Applicant’s 213; Figure 3) extending into the first outer surface (top of 44; Figure 5A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) orientated at an oblique angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Huang to add third flow openings as taught by Park at optimized angles.
Motivation for Huang to add third flow openings as taught by Park at optimized angles is for at least reducing “bowing, warpage” as taught by Park ([0064]). Further, it is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04)
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) and Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1) in view of Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20230128390 A1). Huang and Park are discussed above. Huang (US 20220352006 A1) and Park do not teach:
the substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 1, wherein the first oblique angle (first oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A1) is within a range of 0º to 5º, as claimed by claim 3
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 3, wherein the second oblique angle (second oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A2) is larger than the first oblique angle (first oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A1), as claimed by claim 4
Huang (US 20230128390 A1) also teaches a substrate support (100; Figure 6) including a ledge (134; Figure 6,7-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) is oriented at an angle (120; Figure 7; [0051] -0.2º< ledge angle<-4º) relative to a plane of a lower end of the ledge (134; Figure 6,7-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), and the angle is within a range of 0º to 5º.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Huang (US 20220352006 A1) to optimize Huang’s (US 20220352006 A1) ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) angle as taught by Huang (US 20230128390 A1).
Motivation for Huang (US 20220352006 A1) to optimize Huang’s (US 20220352006 A1) ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) angle as taught by Huang (US 20230128390 A1) is for “limiting transfer (diffusion) of the film precursor” as taught by Huang (US 20230128390 A1; [0051]).
Claims 2, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) and Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1) in view of Metzner; Craig et al. (US 20070089836 A1). Huang and Park are discussed above. Huang further teaches:
A substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising:a first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3); a pocket defining a pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) that is disposed inwardly of the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) – claim 9
A processing chamber (16; Figure 1) applicable for semiconductor manufacturing, comprising:one or more sidewalls; a window (36; Figure 1) at least partially defining a processing volume; one or more heat sources (46; Figure 1) operable to heat the processing volume; and a substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) disposed in the processing volume, the substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) comprising: a first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3), a ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) disposed inwardly of the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3), the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) orientated at a first oblique angle (first oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A1) relative to a plane of a lower end of the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), a pocket defining a pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) that is disposed inwardly of the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), a plurality of second flow openings (168; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 212; Figure 3) extending into the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), the plurality of second flow openings (168; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 212; Figure 3) orientated at a second oblique angle (second oblique angle at 118; Figure 11A; “oblique vent”; [0144]-Applicant’s A2) relative to a plane of a lower end of the pocket – claim 19
Huang does not teach:
a plurality of third flow openings (Applicant’s 213; Figure 3) extending into the first outer surface (top of 100; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) – claim 19
Huang and Park do not teach:
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) extending into the pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3), as claimed by claim 2
one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprising: an opening section having a diameter, a ledge (Applicant’s 233; Figure 3; [0048]) recessed relative to the pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) by a first distance and extending by a second distance, a sum of the first distance and the second distance lesser than the diameter, and a hole section (Applicant’s 235; Figure 4) extending relative to the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), the opening section disposed between the pocket surface and an end of the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3), and the ledge (118; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) extending at an angle between the opening section and the hole section (Applicant’s 235; Figure 4) – claim 9
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the sum is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 0.45 to 0.65, as claimed by claim 10
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the sum is within a range of 2.7 mm to 3.2 mm, as claimed by claim 11
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the diameter is within a range of 5.3 mm to 5.8 mm, as claimed by claim 12
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprises an arcuate surface along an inner edge thereof, as claimed by claim 13
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 13, wherein the arcuate surface has a radius, the radius is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is 0.1 or less, as claimed by claim 14
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, further comprising a lift pin sized and shaped for disposition in the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), as claimed by claim 15
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter that is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is 0.70 or less, as claimed by claim 16
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter, the diameter is a ratio of the second diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 1.45 to 1.95, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter, the sum is a ratio of the second diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 0.85 to 0.95, as claimed by claim 18
and one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprising: an opening section having a diameter, a ledge (Applicant’s 233; Figure 3) recessed relative to the pocket surface (116; Figure 11A-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) by a first distance and extending by a second distance, a sum of the first distance and the second distance lesser than the diameter – claim 19
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 19, further comprising a lift pin sized and shaped for disposition in the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), wherein the lift pin has a second diameter, at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprises an arcuate surface along an inner edge thereof, the arcuate surface has a radius, the radius is a ratio of the second diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 0.065 to 0.085, as claimed by claim 20
Metzner also teaches a similar substrate support (124; Figure 1,2) also including a pocket defining a pocket surface (202; Figure 2-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) that is disposed inwardly of a ledge (204; Figure 2-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3) and recessed relative to the ledge (204; Figure 2-Applicant’s 203; Figure 3). Metzner further teaches a plurality of lift pin openings (206,208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) extending into the pocket surface (202; Figure 2-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3).
Metzner further teaches:
one or more lift pin openings (206,208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (206,208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprising: an opening section (208; Figure 2) having a diameter, a ledge (208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 233; Figure 3; [0048]) recessed relative to the pocket surface (202; Figure 2-Applicant’s 207; Figure 3) by a first distance and extending by a second distance, and a hole section (Applicant’s 235; Figure 4) (206; Figure 2) extending relative to the ledge (208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 233; Figure 3; [0048]) – claim 9, 19
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (206, 208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprises an arcuate surface (208; Figure 2) along an inner edge thereof, as claimed by claim 13
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, further comprising a lift pin (214; Figure 2) sized and shaped for disposition in the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (206,208; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), as claimed by claim 15
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 19, further comprising a lift pin (132; Figure 2) sized and shaped for disposition in the at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (233; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4), wherein the lift pin has a second diameter, at least one of the one or more lift pin openings (233; Figure 2-Applicant’s 215; Figure 2,4) comprises an arcuate surface along an inner edge thereof, the arcuate surface has a radius, the radius is a ratio of the second diameter – claim 20
Metzner does not teach:
a sum of the first distance and the second distance lesser than the diameter – claim 9, 19
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the sum is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 0.45 to 0.65, as claimed by claim 10
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the sum is within a range of 2.7 mm to 3.2 mm, as claimed by claim 11
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 9, wherein the diameter is within a range of 5.3 mm to 5.8 mm, as claimed by claim 12
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 13, wherein the arcuate surface (208; Figure 2) has a radius, the radius is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is 0.1 or less, as claimed by claim 14
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter that is a ratio of the diameter, and the ratio is 0.70 or less, as claimed by claim 16
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter, the diameter is a ratio of the second diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 1.45 to 1.95, as claimed by claim 17
The substrate support (100; Figure 1,3,10-Applicant’s 106; Figure 1; 200; Figure 2,3) of claim 15, wherein a head of the lift pin has a second diameter, the sum is a ratio of the second diameter, and the ratio is within a range of 0.85 to 0.95, as claimed by claim 18
and the ratio is within a range of 0.065 to 0.085 - claim 20
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Huang to add Metzner’s lift pin to Huang’s apparatus at optimized dimensions.
Motivation for Huang to add Metzner’s lift pin to Huang’s apparatus at optimized dimensions is for loading/unloading substrates as taught by Metzner ([0026]). Motivation for Huang to add Metzner’s lift pin at optimized dimensions is for loading/unloading substrates of variable diameters. It is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed September 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) Figure 10A and Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of under Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) Figure 11A and Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1).
Applicant states:
“
Applicant also respectfully submits the following arguments. In relation to "the plurality of second flow openings oriented at a[n] [ ] oblique angle relative to a plane of a lower end of the pocket," the Office Action at Pages 3-4 alleges that the cited opening portions 40a, 40c, 40d of Park can be combined with the cited susceptor 100 of Huang'006. However, the cited opening portions of Park extend to the upper surface 40U and not to a surface of the wafer support portion 46. See Park at Figure 5A.
“
In response, Park is cited as teaching a substrate support (44,30; Figure 1, 5A) including flow openings (40a,c,d; Figure 5A-C-Applicant’s 213; Figure 3) extending into the first outer surface (top of 44; Figure 5A-Applicant’s 201; Figure 3) orientated at an oblique angle. The citation of Park is not applied for Applicant’s “a surface of the wafer support portion 46”. See above.
Applicant states:
“
Moreover, Huang'006 and Park respectively teach away from the alleged combination. For example, in Huang'006 the system 10 is for depositing a film on a frontside (see Fig. 1) whereas the backside of the substrate 14 faces a purged volume 130. Park, on the other hand, involves using the opening portions 40a to flow gas away from the front surface of the wafer W to protect the front surface WF from plasma while forming film 100b on the rear surface WB of the wafer W. Paragraphs [0035]-[0036]. Indeed, the mere existence of an alternative arrangement is not sufficient to establish obviousness. Virtek Vision Int'l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., Case No. 22-1998, Slip Op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024) ("It does not suffice to meet the motivation to combine requirement to recognize that two alternative arrangements ... were both known in the art.").
“
In response to applicant's argument that Huang; Shujin et al. (US 20220352006 A1) and Park; Byung Sun et al. (US 20190145001 A1) are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Huang and Park are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor – wafer support and processing.
Applicant states:
“
In relation to "a sum of the first distance and the second distance lesser than the diameter" (as recited in claim 9), the Office Action's citations do not teach this, nor the ranges in dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, and 16-18. However, the Office action points to no part of the cited references that recognize the missing subject matter as a result-effective variable. Hence, the asserted optimization is insufficient to establish obviousness. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (reversed because "the parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable"); see also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (routine optimization is "limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a result-effective variable"); see also Ex parte Abbott, Appeal No. 2021-000770, Slip Op. at Page 3 (P.T.A.B. March 2, 2022) ("We note that when the prior art discloses 'very broad ranges,' such 'may not invite routine optimization."') (quoting Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
“
In response, the Examiner’s cited rationale for result-effective variables is repeated above and again noted that motivation for Huang to add third flow openings as taught by Park at optimized angles is for at least reducing “bowing, warpage” as taught by Park ([0064]). Further, it is well established that changes in apparatus dimensions are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.(Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.04)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Substrate support structures with under substrate gas injection include US 20030168174 A1; US 20060222481 A1; US 7601224 B2; US 20230128390 A1; US 12394659 B2
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
