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 .
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 with respect to Butterfield have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that replacing the sensor and probe of Tang with an acoustic sensor having a planar top surface abutting or secured to the bottom surface of the acoustic window or polishing layer would render tang inoperable. Applicant cites Tang discussing the benefits of attaching probe 270. However, Tang does disclose different embodiments of acoustic sensors, in Para [0045] when introducing the probe Tang states “The acoustic emission sensor 162 can include a probe 170 that provides a waveguide for transmission of acoustic energy.” The word Can indicating that the sensor is not required for operation, which is further supported by the discussion of the sensor operation in Para [0040]- [0042] without discussion or mention of the probe 270, with Fig. 1 of Tang showing the sensor 162 pressed directly against the polishing pad. As such Examiner does not find this persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160256978 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN 102245350 A, as cited in the office action dated 06/21/2024, updated translation provided in this office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
a platen (120);
a polishing pad (110) supported on the platen, the polishing pad having a polishing layer (112), the polishing layer having a polishing surface (surface that contacts 10, see Fig. 2);
a carrier head (140) to hold a surface of a substrate (10) against the polishing pad (110);
a motor (121) to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (See Para [0033] “For example, a motor 121, e.g., a DC induction motor, can turn a drive shaft 124 to rotate the platen 120.”);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (160) comprising an acoustic window (200, and 206) in the polishing pad (110) and an acoustic sensor (160, including housing 162 and probe 170) acoustically coupled to the acoustic window (see figure 4 showing sensor and pad coupled acoustically), and wherein the acoustic window has a top surface that is coplanar with the polishing surface to contact the substrate (See figure 4 where 200 is coplanar with 112 which is the top layer of polishing pad and contacts wafer 10)
and
a controller configured to detect a polishing endpoint based on received acoustic signals from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (See Abstract of Tang “The in-situ acoustic emission monitoring system is configured to detect acoustic events caused by deformation of the substrate and transmitted through the waveguide, and the processor is configured to determine a polishing endpoint based on the signal.”).
And suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the acoustic window has a lower acoustic attenuation coefficient than the polishing layer (See Para [0032] “However, a potential problem with acoustic monitoring is transmission of the acoustic signal to the sensor. The polishing pad tends to dampen the acoustic signal. Thus, it would be advantageous to have the sensor in a position with low attenuation of the acoustic signal.” And Para [0006] “By placing the acoustic sensor in direct contact with the slurry or with a pad portion that is mechanically decoupled from the remainder of the polishing pad, signal attenuation can be reduced. This can provide more accurate monitoring or endpoint detection. This acoustic sensor can be used for endpoint detection in other polishing processes, e.g., to detect removal of a filler layer and exposure of an underlying layer”) and a planar bottom surface, and the acoustic sensor has a planar top surface abutting, or adhesively secured to, the planar bottom surface of the acoustic window (See Figure 4 showing sensor 162 contact 200 and 206 via probe 170 and is secured via threading 122, in figure 4 of Tang and see Para [0054] “Optionally, a recess 206 can be formed in the top surface of the body 200, and the probe 170 can extend through the body 200 into the recess 206.”),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the acoustic window to have a lower acoustic attenuation than the polishing layer as advantageously described by Tang as doing so would reduce the dampening effect of the polishing pad on the sensor and it would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the probe so that it abuts against the planar bottom surface of the window.
Akiyama discloses a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein an acoustic sensor (34) has a planar top-most surface (34a see Figure 4 and 5a) abutting (See Fig. 6), or adhesively secured to a planar bottom surface of the acoustic window (Aluminum 18). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the sensor to abut against the window as Akiyama discloses that doing so would beneficially increase the detection sensitivity. See Akiyama Para [0077] “Alternatively, as shown in FIG6, a through hole 22A can be formed in the center of the grinding platform 22 as the mounting position of the AE sensor 34, and the detection surface 34A of the AE sensor 34 shown by the double-dotted line can be mounted on the lower surface of the plate 18 through the through hole 22A. If the AE sensor 34 is installed in the center of the grinding platform 22, the distance between the breakage location of the glass plate G and the AE sensor 34 can be shortened. By achieving this configuration structure, the detection sensitivity of elastic waves can be improved.”.
Regarding Claim 2, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the planar bottom surface of the acoustic window is coplanar with a lower surface of the polishing layer (See Figure 4 where window 200 and 206 is coplanar with the bottom of layer 112 and coplanar with the top of softer backing layer 114).
Regarding Claim 3, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the polishing pad has a backing layer below the polishing pad (See Figure 4 showing backing layer 114).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition teaches wherein the planar bottom surface of the acoustic window is coplanar with a top surface of the backing layer (See Figure 4, bottom of 200 is coplanar with a top surface of the backing layer).
Regarding Claim 5, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and in addition teaches wherein an aperture is formed through the backing layer (See Fig. 4 showing Aperture 118).
Regarding Claim 6, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and in addition teaches wherein the acoustic sensor is at least partially positioned in the aperture to contact the planar bottom surface of the acoustic window (Tang as modified by Akiyama discloses a sensor in an aperture contacting a bottom surface of an acoustic window see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 additionally teaches wherein the in-situ acoustic monitoring system comprises a housing (162 is the housing of the sensor, see 162 supporting probe 170) to support the acoustic sensor, but does not explicitly teach and a spring arranged to press the housing and the acoustic sensor against a portion of the polishing layer.
However, Akiyama does teach a similar polishing device wherein a spring is arranged to press a sensor against a portion of the polishing layer (See Para [0025] “At this time, from the viewpoint of improving the accuracy of detecting the occurrence of minute abnormalities, a biasing means such as a spring is provided to press the detection surface of the AE sensor against the metal cover.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Sensor housing of Tang to include a spring to bias the sensor closer to the polishing surface to improve the accuracy of the sensor during the polishing operation.
Regarding Claim 19, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the controller is configured to perform frequency domain analysis to determine changes in relative power of spectral frequencies (See Para [0062] “In some implementations, a frequency analysis of the signal is performed. For example, a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) can be performed on the signal to generate a frequency spectrum. A particular frequency band can be monitored, and if the intensity in the frequency band crosses a threshold value, this can indicate exposure of an underlying layer, which can be used to trigger endpoint.”).
Regarding Claim 21, Tang as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein sidewalls of the acoustic window contact the polishing layer (See figure 4, seals 202 contact layer 112).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160256978 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN 102245350 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Lehman (US 20110313558 A1) and Fung (US 20170133252 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 5, but does not explicitly teach further including an acoustically transmissive layer positioned in the aperture through the backing layer between the acoustic sensor and the acoustic window, wherein the acoustically transmissive layer has a lower acoustic attenuation than the backing layer.
However, Lehman Teaches a layer (254) positioned between a sensor (252 objective 252 is part of a sensor See Para [0087] “A gap between an optical objective of the measurement device”) and a housing for a sensor (238) in an aperture (See Figure 1K).
And Fung teaches that in a similar polishing apparatus, it is beneficial to have a region of the pad between a sensor and polishing surface of the pad with reduced “resistance” of sensing a desired processing parameter as doing so results in a more accurate measurement (See Para [0073]- [0075] Reproduced below this rejection for convenience).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polishing apparatus of Tang to include an acoustically transmissive layer positioned in an aperture through the backing layer between the acoustic sensor and the acoustic window as advantageously suggested by Lehman in order to prevent damage to the sensor and sensor components during the polishing process (See Para [0107] of Lehman “Objective housing 248 may include objective 252 and filler 254 disposed between objective 252 and housing 238. The filler may include a material having elastic properties such that the material may reduce, and may even prevent, damage caused by contact between the objective and the housing.”). It Would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the layer to have a lower acoustic attenuation than the backing layer as doing so would increase the accuracy of the measurement of the sensor. (See Fung Para [0073]- [0075]
In one embodiment, a region 622 of the pad 200 disposed between the sensor 604 and the polishing surface of the pad 200 may be configured to enhance the measurement of a desired processing parameter by use of the sensor 604 that is coupled to the region 622. The region 622 may extend from the sensor 604 to the top surface 208 of the pad 200 in one embodiment, or the region 622 may extend from the sensor 604 to the grooves 218 in another embodiment. By reducing “resistance” of sensing a desired processing parameter, a more accurate measurement of the processing parameter may be achieved in real time. For example, if the sensor 604 is a temperature sensor, the region 622 may be formed from a thermally conductive material which has a greater coefficient of thermal conductivity than a remainder of the pad 200. By reducing thermal resistance between the polishing surface of the pad 200 and the sensor 604, signal detection by the sensor 604 may be achieved at a greater rate.
In another example, if the sensor 604 is a pressure sensor, and the region 622 may be formed from a material having an elastic modulus greater than the remainder of the pad 200. In other words, the region 622 may be stiffer than the surrounding pad material to facilitate more accurate sensing of a pressure applied at the polishing surface. In another example, if the sensor 604 is an electrical conductivity sensor configured to detect changes in conductivity at the polishing surface, the region 622 may be formed from a material which contains regions that are more electrically conductive than the surrounding pad materials. Thus, electrical resistance in the region 622 may be reduced which may improve the data rate at which the sensor 604 received signals from the polishing surface. It is contemplated that various other sensors may be employed and suitable configured materials may be utilized in the region 622 to improve the accuracy of processing parameter detection. Generally, manufacturing of the region 622 may be advantageously employed via 3D printing processes which enable material selectivity within the pad 200 in a cost efficient and controllable manner.
The sensor 604 is intended to be representative of various types of sensing and metrology apparatus suitable for use in CMP processes. In one embodiment, the sensor 604 may be configured for polishing system identification and tracking. For example, the polishing system 100 may be configured to engage in operation when a polishing pad having the wireless communication apparatus 600 is mounted to the platen 102. In this embodiment, the interrogator 601 in the platen 102 would receive data from the tag 602 indicating the correct type of polishing pad was installed on the polishing system. After authentication of polishing pad type via the tag data received by the interrogator 601, the polishing system 101 would “unlock” and engage in full polishing functionality. In some embodiments, after authentication of polishing pad type via the received tag data, the polishing system 101 adjusts one or more polishing parameters based on the received tag data. In one example, the received tag data may include information relating to the polishing pad type, pad configuration (e.g., surface features 502, base material layer 504, and backing layer 506 types, thickness), surface structure of the pad 200, or other useful information.)
Regarding Claim 8, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and in addition teaches wherein the planar bottom surface of the acoustically transmissive layer is coplanar with a bottom surface of the polishing pad (Acoustically transmissive layer is located below the window as modified in claim 7, which is coplanar with the bottom of polishing layer 112).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160256978 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN 102245350 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view Swedek (US 20030236055 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein an indentation is formed in an underside of the polishing layer to form a thin portion of the polishing layer, the acoustic window is positioned in the thin portion of the polishing layer, and the sensor is at least partially positioned in the indentation.
However, Swedek teaches a similar polishing apparatus that does teach wherein an indentation is formed in an underside of a polishing layer with a thin portion of the polishing layer (See 54 in Figure 4), with a sensor at least partially positioned in the indentation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polishing pad of Tang to include an indentation formed in an underside of the polishing layer to form a thing portion of the polishing layer, the acoustic window is positioned in the thin portion of the polishing layer, and the sensor is at least partially positioned in the indentation to allow the sensor to be as close to the wafer to be sensed as possible while not interrupting the polishing process in order to increase the accuracy of the sensor.
Claim(s) 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160256978 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN 102245350 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view Hwang (US 20130044004 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic window is a non-porous material.
However, Hwang does teach a polishing pad which can be made of porous or non-porous materials (See Para [0020] “During processing, the polishing pad 15, which may be porous or non-porous and which comes in a variety of commercially available types optimized for planarization, dielectric removal, copper removal, etc., is rotated.”).
And Tang teaches the window can be made of the same material as the polishing pad (See Para [0055] “As noted above, the body 200 can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad, e.g., porous polyurethane.””).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the window 200 to be a non-porous material to prevent the leakage of slurry through the window and seal and towards the sensor similar to that of the O-ring described in Tang, preventing damage to the sensor from the slurry (See Para [0056] of Tang “Optionally, a seal 202, e.g., an O-ring, can be used to prevent slurry leakage through the gap 204 between the body 200 and the polishing pad 110.”) .
Regarding Claim 11, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and in addition teaches wherein the polishing layer is porous and the acoustic window is solid (See Para [0055] “As noted above, the body 200 can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad, e.g., porous polyurethane.” Polyurethane is a solid and if the polishing layer is made of than it is porous).
Examiner notes that the teaching of Para [0055] as cited above does not teach away, destroy or prevent the modification made in claim 10, Para [0055] in its entirety states “As noted above, the body 200 can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad, e.g., porous polyurethane. The body 200 can be opaque. On the other hand, in some implementations, the polishing system 100 also includes an in-situ optical monitoring system. In this case the body 200 can be a transparent window through which the optical monitoring system directs a light beam.” Tang describes porous polyurethane as a possible material (“the body 200 CAN be of the same material” [emphasis added]. And uses very similar language directly after to describe that the body can be opaque but then goes on state that in some implementations that 200 can be transparent. Implying the material can be varied based on the needs of the embodiment/invention and is otherwise non-critical. And in the following paragraph [0056] which is cited above in the rejection of claim 10 provides a reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the body 200 to be non-porous.
Claim(s) 12-16 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160256978 A1) in view of Akiyama (CN 102245350 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view Lehman (US 20110313558 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein a compressibility of the acoustic window is within 20% of a compressibility of the polishing layer.
However, Lehman does teach a similar polishing apparatus with a window that is explicitly compressible (See Para [0093] “As such, window 182 may expand along this direction. For example, the window may be formed of a gel that may compress in response to a pressure on an upper surface of the window. When the gel compresses, it may expand in a direction substantially parallel to upper surface 186.”).
And it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Window of Tang to be a compressible as doing so would allow it to easily withstand the pressure applied via the carrier head. It would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the windows compressibility be within 20% of a compressibility of the polishing layer, as Lehman teaches in Para [0093] “When the gel compresses, it may expand in a direction substantially parallel to upper surface 186. In addition, the gel may compress in response to a reduction in thickness of the polishing pad. In this manner, the gel may be configured to compress such that an upper surface of the window is substantially coplanar with a polishing surface of the polishing pad despite a reduction in thickness of the polishing pad.” Indicating that the compressibility of the window with respect to the polishing layer is a result effective variable, as configuring the windows compressibility such that the upper surface of the window is coplanar with a polishing surface of the polishing pad is stated as a desirable effect by Lehman and as such it would be a matter of routine optimization of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the window’s compressibility to be within 20% of the polishing layer.
Regarding Claim 13, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic sensor is adhesively attached to the acoustic window to receive acoustic signals from the substrate.
However, Lehman teaches a similar polishing apparatus that utilizes an adhesive strip to hold multiple pieces together See Para [0101] “Polishing pad 208 may also include adhesive film 224 disposed between the top pad and the sub pad. The adhesive film may also be disposed between the first portion of the window and the second portion of the window.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor and window of Tang to be attached via adhesive as doing so would ensure that the sensor and window are kept in place and in the same spatial relationship to each during the polishing operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach further including an acoustically transmissive layer arranged between the acoustic sensor and the acoustic window.
However, Lehman Teaches a layer (254) positioned between a sensor (252 objective 252 is part of a sensor See Para [0087] “A gap between an optical objective of the measurement device”) and a housing for a sensor (238) in an aperture (See Figure 1K).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polishing apparatus of Tang to include an acoustically transmissive layer positioned in an aperture through the backing layer between the acoustic sensor and the acoustic window as advantageously suggested by Lehman in order to prevent damage to the sensor and sensor components during the polishing process (See Para [0107] of Lehman “Objective housing 248 may include objective 252 and filler 254 disposed between objective 252 and housing 238. The filler may include a material having elastic properties such that the material may reduce, and may even prevent, damage caused by contact between the objective and the housing.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 14 but does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustically transmissive layer is adhesively attached to the acoustic window.
However, Lehman teaches a similar polishing apparatus that utilizes an adhesive strip to hold multiple pieces together See Para [0101] “Polishing pad 208 may also include adhesive film 224 disposed between the top pad and the sub pad. The adhesive film may also be disposed between the first portion of the window and the second portion of the window.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify acoustically transmissive layer and acoustic window of Tang to be attached via adhesive as doing so would ensure that the transmissive layer and window are kept in place and in the same spatial relationship to each during the polishing operation.
Regarding Claim 16, Tang as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 15 but does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic sensor is adhesively attached to the acoustically transmissive layer.
However, Lehman teaches a similar polishing apparatus that utilizes an adhesive strip to hold multiple pieces together See Para [0101] “Polishing pad 208 may also include adhesive film 224 disposed between the top pad and the sub pad. The adhesive film may also be disposed between the first portion of the window and the second portion of the window.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify acoustically transmissive layer and acoustic Sensor of Tang to be attached via adhesive as doing so would ensure that the transmissive layer and sensor are kept in place and in the same spatial relationship to each during the polishing operation.
Regarding Claim 20, Tang teaches A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
a platen (120);
a polishing pad (110) supported on the platen;
a carrier head (140) to hold a surface of a substrate (10) against the polishing pad (110);
a motor (121) to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (See Para [0033] “For example, a motor 121, e.g., a DC induction motor, can turn a drive shaft 124 to rotate the platen 120.”);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system (160) comprising an acoustic sensor (160) that receives acoustic signals from the surface of the substrate (See para [0042] “In the implementation shown in FIG. 1, the acoustic emission sensor 162 is positioned in a recess 164 in the platen 120 and is positioned to receive acoustic emissions from a side of the substrate closer to the polishing pad 110.”), the acoustic sensor contacts the bottom surface of the polishing pad (See Figure 1 showing 162 (part of 160) contacting the bottom surface of the polishing pad)
a controller configured to detect a polishing endpoint based on received acoustic signals from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (See Abstract of Tang “The in-situ acoustic emission monitoring system is configured to detect acoustic events caused by deformation of the substrate and transmitted through the waveguide, and the processor is configured to determine a polishing endpoint based on the signal.”).
But does not explicitly teach the planar top-most surface of the acoustic sensor adhesively attached to a bottom surface of the polishing pad;
However, Lehman teaches a similar polishing apparatus that utilizes an adhesive strip to hold multiple pieces together See Para [0101] “Polishing pad 208 may also include adhesive film 224 disposed between the top pad and the sub pad. The adhesive film may also be disposed between the first portion of the window and the second portion of the window.”
And Akiyama discloses a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein a planar top-most surface (34a) of the acoustic sensor (34) is attached to a backing layer of a polishing pad (18, See Para [0056] “Therefore, the slurry is supplied evenly to the grinding pad 20. It should be noted that the abrasive pad 20 is, for example, a polyurethane foam type or a napped leather type pad, and is attached to the plate 18.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor of Tang to be attached to the bottom surface of the polishing pad via adhesive, as opposed to embedding a probe through a window as disclosed by Tang, as both are known equivalents in the art for mounting a sensor in a polishing apparatus and as doing so would ensure that the transmissive layer and window are kept in place and in the same spatial relationship to each during the polishing operation.
Conclusion
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723