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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the "data processing and analysis module" as recited in claims 1-10 and “mechanism” as recited in claims 8-10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Valves are recited as both element numbers 130 and 131 in the specification, but are illustrated as element 131 in Figures 1 and 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Means-plus-function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Dynamic control unit as recited in claims 1-10 where dynamic control to receive the first and second concentrations from the concentration sensor is the functional language where the term unit is the generic placeholder.
Memory unit as recited in claim 5 where memory to facilitate processing and adjustment of the flow rates based on the detected first and second concentrations is the functional language and unit is the generic placeholder.
Central processing unit as recited in claim 5 where central processing to facilitate processing and adjustment of the flow rates based on the detected first and second concentrations is the functional language where the term unit is the generic placeholder.
First adjusting mechanism as recited in claims 11-17 where first adjusting for introducing and controlling a flow rate of a first gas into the tank is the functional language where the term mechanism is the generic placeholder
Second adjusting mechanism as recited in claims 11-17 where second adjusting for introducing and controlling a flow rate of a second gas into the tank is the functional language where the term mechanism is the generic placeholder
Sensory unit as recited in claims 11-17 where sensory to continuous monitor of gas concentrations of the first and second gases within the chemical liquid is the functional language and the term unit is the generic placeholder
Control module as recited in claims 11-17 where control as in receiving a data on the gas concentrations of the first and second gases within the chemical liquid; to receive a data on the gas concentrations of the first and second gases from the sensory unit, compute adjustments to the flow rates of the first and second gases based on the received data, and coordinate an operation of the gas delivery system to maintain the gas concentrations of the first and second gases for the etching processes is the functional language and the term module is the generic placeholder
Exhaust mechanism as recited in claims 11-17 where exhaust is the functional language as in exhausting the tank to control the internal pressure of the tank and the flow rates of the first and second gases and mechanism is the generic placeholder
Liquid introduction system as recited in claims 11-17 where liquid introduction is the functional language and system is the generic placeholder
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Dynamic control unit is not explicitly recited in the original specification but upon review of the original specification [0026] and interpreting the term according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is interpreted as part of the controller 160.
Memory unit is recited in [0022] and [0026] and is part the controller 160. For the purposes of examination, the memory unit is interpreted as memory.
Central processing unit is recited in [0022] and [0026] and is part of the controller 160. For the purpose of examination this term is interpreted as a central processor.
First adjusting mechanism is interpreted as valves 131see [0022], [0026], [0037] –[0042] [0045], [0046] and valves 131 see [0037] of the original specification.
Second adjusting mechanism is interpreted as valves 131 see [0045], [0046] and valves 131 see [0037] of the original specification.
Sensory unit is not explicitly recited in the original specification but upon review of the original specification in [0022], [0025], [0026] it is interpreted as concentration sensor 150.
Control module is not explicitly recited in the original specification, but upon review of the original specification [0022], [0026], [0034], [0038], and [0044] – [0047] control module is interpreted as controller 160.
Exhaust mechanism is not explicitly recited in the original specification, but upon review of the original specification [0023], [0043] –[0046], exhaust mechanism is interpreted as exhaust opening 140.
Liquid introduction system is not explicitly recited in the original specification, but upon review of the original specification and Figs, 1 and 2, liquid introduction system is interpreted as chemical liquid inlet 120.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Clarification
The controller as recited in claims 18-20 is interpreted as element 160 and according to the original specification [0022] which is a machine control unit. The machine control unit can include a memory unit, a central processing unit, an input interface, and electrical connections to the concentration sensor 150 and the valves 131.
In claim 5, dynamic control unit is recited to include a memory unit, central processing unit, and an input interface. If applicant does not wish to have memory unit and central processing unit interpreted under means-plus function or under 35 USC 112(f) the terms can be recited as memory and central processor respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “data processing and analysis module” is not described in the specification. Upon review of the original specification [0026] it appears that the “data processing and analysis module” is part of or a subsection the controller 160. For the purpose of examination the term “data processing and analysis module” is interpreted as a microprocessor or subsection of the controller 160.
Claims 8-10 recite “a mechanism” yet the specification does not explicitly recite the structure or the structural equivalents of the mechanism. Figures 1 and 2 and the specification [0023] recites that the exhaust opening 140 allows gas to flow out of the tank 110. For the purposes of examination “a mechanism” is interpreted as exhaust opening 140.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “data processing and analysis module” is recited in claims 1-10, but is not described in the specification. Upon review of the original specification [0026] it appears that the “data processing and analysis module” is part of or a subsection the controller 160. For the purpose of examination the term “data processing and analysis module” is interpreted as a data processor, microprocessor, or subsection of the controller 160.
Claims 8-10 recite “a mechanism” yet the specification does not explicitly recite the structure or the structural equivalents of the mechanism. Figures 1 and 2 and the specification [0023] recites that the exhaust opening 140 allows gas to flow out of the tank 110. For the purposes of examination “a mechanism” is interpreted as exhaust opening 140.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nishide et al (US 11, 439, 967).
Regarding claim 1. The prior art of Nishide et al teaches a system, comprising: a storage tank (see tanks 213, 214) configured to hold a chemical liquid used in etching processes; a first gas injection unit, comprising: a first gas pipe 258 gaseously upstream of the storage tank and configured to inject a first gas into the storage tank; and a first adjustable valve 259 mounted on the first gas pipe, configured to control a first flow rate of the first gas; a second gas injection unit, comprising: a second gas pipe 260 gaseously upstream of the storage tank and configured to inject a second gas into the storage tank; and a second adjustable valve 261 mounted on the second gas pipe, configured to control a second flow rate of the second gas; a concentration sensor (sensors 277, 278) connected to the storage tank, configured to continuously detect and monitor a first concentration of the first gas and a second concentration of the second gas dissolved in the chemical liquid; a dynamic control unit (mixing ratio adjusting unit see col. 17 lines 36-40) electrically connected to the first and second adjustable valves and the concentration sensor, configured to receive the first and second concentrations from the concentration sensor; and a data processing and analysis module (controller 4 see col. 17 lines 43-55) integrated with the dynamic control unit, configured to analyze the first and second concentrations and generate gas flow adjustments of the first and second flow rates, and send the gas flow adjustments to the dynamic control unit, wherein the dynamic control unit initiates the gas flow adjustments to the first and second adjustable valves. See Fig. 6 of Nishide et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
539
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Nishide et al
Regarding claim 2. The system of Nishide et al where first gas pipe is an oxygen gas injection pipe (due to dry clean air 258), and the second gas pipe is a nitrogen gas injection pipe 260 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first and second gas pipes (258, 260) have outlets in a position lower than a top surface of the chemical liquid within the storage tank 214. See Fig. 6 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 5. Nishide et al teaches the dynamic control unit (controller 4) includes a memory unit.(fixed memory device) see col. 16 lines , a central processing unit CPU), and an input interface (input unit) to facilitate processing and adjustment of the first and second flow rates based on the detected first and second concentrations. See col. 16 lines 32-46 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 6. Nishide et al teaches the dynamic control unit (controller 4) electrically configured to open the first and second adjustable valves of the first and second gas injection units simultaneously. See col. 16 line 41 – col. 18 line 43 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 7. Nishide et al teaches the data processing and analysis module(mixing ratio adjusting unit see col. 17 lines 36-40 of Nishide et al which is part of controller 4) is configured to analyze the first and second concentrations based on performance parameters that include minimizing defect counts in wafers.
Regarding claim 8. Nishide et al teaches a mechanism (pump 270) configured to adjust a gas flow through an exhaust opening(second circulation piping 268 return piping 273) on the storage tank.
PNG
media_image2.png
635
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Nishide et al
Regarding claim 18. Nishide et al. teaches a system comprising: a tank 214 configured to store a chemical liquid; a plurality of gas pipes 258, 260 gaseously upstream of the tank and configured to respectively inject gases into the tank; a plurality of valves 259, 261 on the gas pipes and configured to respectively control flow rates of the gases into the tank; a concentration sensor 277, 278 configured to detect concentrations of the gases in the chemical liquid; and a controller 4 electrically connected to the valves and the concentration sensor, and configured to adjust the valves based on the detected concentrations of the gases. See col. 16 line 41 – col. 17 line 62 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 20. The system of claim 18, wherein the gas pipes have gas outlets in the chemical liquid in the tank. See Fig. 6 of Nishide et al.
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 3, 9-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide et al (US 11, 439, 967) in view of Miura et al US 2017/0294323).
The teachings of Nishide et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Nishide et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first and second gas pipes have outlets in a position higher than a top surface of the chemical liquid within the storage tank.
Regarding claim 9. The system of claim 8, the exhaust opening is on a top portion of the storage tank.
Miura et al teaches storage tank 3 with gas injection pipes 27 and 28 with valves 31, liquid pipe 26, and controller 4.
Regarding claim 10. The prior art of Nishide et al fails to teach a chemical liquid injection pipe configured to inject the chemical liquid into the storage tank, wherein an inlet of the chemical liquid injection pipe and outlets of the first and second gas pipes laterally surround the exhaust opening. See Fig. of Miura et al where inlet of the chemical liquid injection pipe 26 and outlets of the first and second gas pipes 30 laterally surround the exhaust opening 33. The design of the location of the chemical liquid injection pipe configured to inject the chemical liquid into the storage tank, wherein an inlet of the chemical liquid injection pipe and outlets of the first and second gas pipes laterally surround the exhaust opening is a matter of optimization and design choice to ensure introduction and exhaust of processing gases is optimized to maintain the optimal pressure, concentrations, and flow rate of the processing gases and thus yield the desired process result. The optimal location of the chemical liquid injection pipe relative the storage tank can be determined without undue routine experimentation such that the inlet of the chemical liquid injection pipe and outlets of the first and second gas pipes laterally surround the exhaust opening can be determined. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the suggestion of Miura et al to design of the location of the chemical liquid injection pipe configured to inject the chemical liquid into the storage tank, wherein an inlet of the chemical liquid injection pipe and outlets of the first and second gas pipes laterally surround the exhaust opening
Regarding claim 11. Recall the prior art of Nishide et al teaches a system comprising: a tank (tanks 213, 214) storing a chemical liquid for etching processes; a gas delivery system, comprising: a first gas injector equipped with a first gas pipe 258 and a first adjusting mechanism 259 for introducing and controlling a flow rate of a first gas into the tank; and a second gas injector 260 equipped with a gas pipe and a second adjusting mechanism 261 for introducing and controlling a flow rate of a second gas into the tank; a sensory unit (concentration sensors 277, 278) attached to the tank, configured to continuous monitor gas concentrations of the first and second gases within the chemical liquid; a control module (controller 4) , electrically integrated with the sensory unit and the gas delivery system, configured to receive a data on the gas concentrations of the first and second gases from the sensory unit, compute adjustments to the flow rates of the first and second gases based on the received data, and coordinate an operation of the gas delivery system to maintain the gas concentrations of the first and second gases for the etching processes.
The prior art of Nishide et al fails to teach an exhaust mechanism located on the tank to control an internal pressure of the tank and the flow rates of the first and second gases; and a liquid introduction system, incorporating a distribution pipeline that injects the chemical liquid into the tank.
The motivation to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the exhaust mechanism (purge piping 33) of Miura et al is to provide a structure that can charges the gas from a discharge port disposed above a liquid level inside the tank 20 to make the gas inside the tank 20 be exhausted to an unillustrated exhaust pipe. See [0039] of Miura et al. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the exhaust mechanism of Miura et al is to provide a structure that can adjust the purging of the tank.
Regarding claim 12. The system of claim 11, wherein the sensory unit (277, 278) is positioned at a level that is below outlets of the first and second gas pipes. See Fig. 6 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 13. The prior art of Nishide et al fails to teach a chemical liquid outlet on the tank, wherein the sensory unit (concentration sensor) is aligned at a same horizontal level as the chemical liquid outlet. The prior art of Miura et al also fails to teach the location of the chemical liquid outlet on the tank, wherein the sensory unit (concentration sensor) is aligned at a same horizontal level as the chemical liquid outlet. Nevertheless, the location of the chemical liquid outlet and concentration sensor are matters of optimization and design choice barring a showing of criticality. The locations of the chemical liquid outlet and sensory unit would be determined without undue routine experimentation to ensure an accurate measurement of the concentration of first and second gases in the chemical liquid which would ensure the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et a as modified by Miura et al to ensure the locations of the chemical liquid outlet and sensory unit are optimized to ensure an accurate measurement of the concentration of first and second gases in the chemical liquid.
Regarding claim 14. Recall the prior art of Nishide et al fails to teach an exhaust mechanism. See Fig. 1 of Miura et al which illustrates gas pipes above and below the exhaust opening (purge piping 33). See [0039] of Miura et al. Miura et al teaches the location of the outlets of the first and second gas pipes relative the exhaust outlet opening is a matter of optimization which can be determined without undue experimentation to ensure the desired degree of vacuum and exhaust from the tank. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the exhaust mechanism Miura et al wherein outlets of the first and second gas pipe are positioned lower than an exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism so that the optimal exhaust from the tank is ensured.
Regarding claim 15. The system of claim 11, wherein outlets of the first and second gas pipe 256,257 are positioned lower than an inlet of the distribution pipeline of the liquid introduction system see the introduction of TMAH and DIW. See Fig. 7 of Nishide et al.
Regarding claim 16. Nishide et al fails to teach the outlets of the first and second gas pipe, an exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism , and an inlet of the distribution pipeline of the liquid introduction system are at a same vertical height. See Fig. 1 of Miura et al which illustrates the outlets of the first and second gas pipe 30, an exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism (purge pipe 33), and an inlet of the distribution pipeline of the liquid introduction system (liquid inlet 26) are at a same vertical height, see also [0035]. Miura et al suggests in Figs 1 and 8 that the location of the outlets of the first and second gas pipes relative the location of the exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism, and an inlet of the distribution pipeline of the liquid introduction system are matters of optimization and design choice. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the location of the outlets of the first and second gas pipes of Miura et al wherein the outlets of the first and second gas pipe, an exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism , and an inlet of the distribution pipeline of the liquid introduction system are at a same vertical height.so that the optimal introduction and exhaust of process fluids to/from the tank is ensured.
Regarding claim 17. Recall Nishide et al teaches the control module (controller 4). Nishide fails to explicitly recite that controller 4 is used to activate the first and second adjusting mechanisms (flow rate adjusting valves 259, 261) of the first and second gas injectors for air and nitrogen simultaneously. Nevertheless, see also Fig. 10 of Nishide where controller 303 controls valve 346 and 349 which control the flow rates of the first and second gases oxygen containing gas (air) and inert gas (nitrogen) see col. 35 lines 23 -47. The motivation to modify the controller 4 of Nishide et al with the enhanced capacity of controller 303 which controls all the valves of the substrate processing system and ensure independent control of the processing fluids to ensure that fluids can be provided individually, all simultaneously, or some combination of fluids as desired. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to ensure independent control of the processing fluids to ensure that fluids can be provided individually, all simultaneously, or some combination of fluids as desired.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Nishide et al
Regarding claim 19. Nishide et al fails to teach the gas pipes have gas outlets above a top surface of the chemical liquid in the tank. See Fig. 1 of Miura et al which illustrates gas pipes above and below the top surface of the chemical liquid in the tank.. Miura et al teaches the location of the outlets of the first and second gas pipes relative top surface of the chemical liquid in the matters of optimization and design choice. The volume of the liquid maintained in the tank is an optimizable processing parameter that would be determined without undue routine experimentation to ensure that the amount is sufficient to yield the desired product result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Nishide et al with the teachings of Miura et al to ensure the gas pipes have gas outlets above a top surface of the chemical liquid in the tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shibayama (US 2003/0234030) See the concentration change part 7 of Shibayama as illustrated in Fig. 3 and the apparatus 100 showing concentration change part 7 with pump 12, wherein outlets of the first and second gas pipe are positioned lower than an exhaust outlet opening of the exhaust mechanism (pump 12) see Fig. 1 of Shibayama.
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
Prosecution Insights