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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections of claims 1, 2, and 19. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the initial 112b rejections of claims 1-17, however the amendment introduced a new issue in claim 1 that is rejected under 112b. This is because the applicant has not defined what percentage of reflection would be considered to fall within or outside the limits of “substantially all the light received”. Claims 1 is rejected under 112b and claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependencies. Additionally, claim 21 is rejected under 112b for similar language.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 regarding the 102 rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 13 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “a first portion configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location.” The applicant argues (see remarks page 7) Gorelik does not teach this limitation since part of the beam is transmitted as beam 110a ([0032]). However, as stated above, the applicant has not defined what percentage of reflection would be considered to fall within or outside the limits of “substantially all the light received”. As seen in Fig. 1c, the part of the light transmitted as beam 110 is small compared to the portion of the light reflected by structures 124. Since “substantially all” has not been defined, one could argue that reflected beam 108 is “substantially all” the light received at the optical element. Further, Gorelik teaches “The ratio of the reflected beam 108 to the transmitted beam 110 (e.g., the beamsplitting ratio) may be determined by the ratio of the area of the structured surface 104 covered by the reflective structures 124 to the area of the structured surface 104 not covered by the reflective structures 124… Accordingly, any combination of the composition, the thickness 130, the size, and the distribution of the reflective structures 124 (e.g., the pitch 128) may be tailored to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest.” Thus, Gorelik teaches that the optical element may be modified to increase the amount of light reflected, therefore, it would have been obvious to modify it such that the first portion is configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location in order to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest thus improving the measurement.
The examiner also draws attention to another prior art reference that appears to teach newly amended claim 1, but is not relied upon in this rejection. However the examiner provides this description of the claim limitations for the sake of compact prosecution. US20150261097A1 by Mathijssen et al. (hereinafter Mathijssen) teaches in Fig. 10 an objective lens (lens above ref 406), illumination source (420), and optical element (beam splitter 454) which comprise a first portion configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate ([0084] Within beam splitter 454, discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface, in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile 448, thus if the mirrors match the illumination pattern, they would reflect substantially all the light received), and a second portion configured to transmit at least part of the light redirected from the substrate (Fig. 10 shows light is transmitted towards 421).
As such, the 102 rejections have been withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Gorelik under 103.
The applicants arguments regarding the 103 rejections of claims 2-4, 7, and 16 are addressed by the above response. However, it does not appear that the applicant has provided arguments for independent claim 18 which has not been amended. As such, the 103 rejections of claims 2-4, 7, 16, and 18-20 have been maintained. The examiner assumes that since claims 18 and 19 were mentioned relating to claim 1 (see remarks page 7), that the same arguments apply for claim 21 which is dependent on claim 18 thus claim 21 is similarly rejected by Gorelik under 103.
Drawings
Upon further consideration, the drawings are objected to because Figures 8 and 10 have multiple arrows and lines pointing to elements with no reference numbers. 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.
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 1-17 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the claims recite the term “substantially” (claim 1 line 5; claim 21 line 2) which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. It is unclear what percentage of reflection would be considered to fall within or outside the limits of “substantially all the light received”. For the purposes of examination, “substantially” is interpreted such that the amount of light reflected by the first portion is higher than the amount of light transmitted by the second portion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190107727A1 by Gorelik et al. (cited in the IDS; hereinafter "Gorelik”; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Gorelik teaches an optical tool comprising (at least Fig. 3):
an objective lens (314) configured to direct light from an illumination source (304) to a substrate (sample 302) or a desired location in the optical tool ([0055]); and
an optical element (nanostructured beam splitter 100; Fig. 1 a-d; [0055]) comprising:
a first portion configured to reflect the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location (reflective structures 124; [0032]), and
a second portion configured to transmit at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location(uncovered surface 126; [0032]), the first portion having higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion, and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0032]; [0044]; [0041] structures 124 materials; [0030] uncovered portion or substrate 102 materials; as structures 124 reflect light and uncovered portion 126 transmit light, the differences in the coefficients of reflectivity and transmissivity would be an inherent property of the described materials).
Although Gorelik does not explicitly teach a first portion configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location, Gorelik teaches “The ratio of the reflected beam 108 to the transmitted beam 110 (e.g., the beamsplitting ratio) may be determined by the ratio of the area of the structured surface 104 covered by the reflective structures 124 to the area of the structured surface 104 not covered by the reflective structures 124… Accordingly, any combination of the composition, the thickness 130, the size, and the distribution of the reflective structures 124 (e.g., the pitch 128) may be tailored to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest.” Thus, Gorelik teaches that the optical element may be modified to increase the amount of light reflected, therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gorelik such that the first portion is configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location in order to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest thus improving the measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens (Fig. 1; objective lens 314 would inherently have a pupil, beam splitter 100), and
wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and
wherein the distance is measured between a point on the first portion and the entrance pupil or between a point on the first portion and the conjugate pupil (reflective structures 124 which make up the first portion reflect light to the objective lens).
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach the specified range, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical element and objective lens at a range that decreases measurement error.
Regarding claim 3, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the specified range is a range at which the optical element captures a diffraction pattern caused by the light directed from the first portion onto the substrate or the desired location and diffracted from the substrate or the desired location ([0052] detector 318 may receive one or more diffracted orders of light from the sample 302 (e.g., 0-order diffraction, ±1 order diffraction, ±2 order diffraction, and the like); Fig. 3 shows detector 318 receives light transmitted from the structure 100 through uncovered portions 126; [0055]) without causing vignetting.
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach without causing vignetting, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range such that there is no vignetting (or blurring) in order to avoid measurement error and increase accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion has the coefficient of reflectivity between 51 % to 100% ([0041] reflective structures 124 may be formed from any material known in the art providing broadband reflectivity for the wavelengths of interest).
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach the coefficient of reflectivity, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reflective material taught by Gorelik would have a coefficient of reflectivity between 51 % to 100% in order to efficiently reflect light with minimal error.
Regarding claim 5, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating ([0041] reflective structures 124 may be formed from one or more films of metals, or deposition of a metal, a photoresist, a photomask, or the like) formed on a glass substrate ([0030] substrate 102 may be glass) where the light from the illumination source is incident on the optical element (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises one or more mirrors positioned to receive the light from the illumination source and reflect the light to the substrate or the desired location (Fig. 1E; [0041] reflective structures would be considered mirrors under BRI as they reflect light).
Regarding claim 7, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion has the coefficient of transmissivity between 51% to 100% ([0030] since the substrate is transparent, it would have a coefficient of transmissivity between 51% to 100%; portion 126 are uncovered areas of this substrate).
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach the coefficient of transmissivity, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the remissive material taught by Gorelik would have a coefficient of transmissivity between 51 % to 100% in order to efficiently transmit light with minimal error.
Regarding claim 8, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion comprises a transparent glass material ([0030] substrate 102 may be transparent glass, portions 126 are uncovered areas of this substrate; [0032]), a high transmission coating on a transparent glass material, no coating with two transparent glass materials contacted together, or one or more holes for pure transmission.
Regarding claim 9, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion (reflective structures 124; [0032]) corresponds to a region (reflective structures 124 make up the region, or a single structure 124 could be considered a region) of the optical element that receives the light from the illumination source and further directs the light toward the substrate or the desired location (Fig 2-3; [0055] reflected beam 108 a; [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region (uncovered portion 126 make up region) of the optical element that receives the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location (Fig. 2-3; [0055] transmitted beam 110 b ; [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region (uncovered portion 126 make up region) of the optical element that receives first order diffractions of the light from the substrate or desired location causing the first order diffractions to pass through the optical element ([0052] detector 318 may receive one or more diffracted orders of light from the sample 302 (e.g., 0-order diffraction, ±1 order diffraction, ±2 order diffraction, and the like); Fig. 3 shows detector 318 receives light transmitted from the structure 100 through uncovered portions 126 thus at least first order diffractions are transmitted by the region; [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises a first quadrant region and a third quadrant region of the optical element (see annotated Fig. 1C below; quadrants 1 and 3 contain first portion elements 124); and the second portion comprises a second quadrant region and a fourth quadrant region of the optical element (quadrants 2 and 4 contain second portion 126; under BRI the first portion and second portion comprises all 4 quadrants, thus the first portion comprises at least the first and third quadrant, and the second portion comprise at least the second and fourth quadrant).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches comprising: a sensor configured to receive the light transmitted through the second portion of the optical element (detector 318; [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches comprising: a processor configured to determine a physical characteristic of a substrate or the desired location based on a diffraction pattern detected by the sensor ([0047]; [0056] controller 326 includes one or more processors 328; controller 326 may receive data from the detector 318 and may further generate metrology data based on the data from the detector 318; [0052] detector receives diffraction data).
Regarding claim 16, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is located within a specified distance from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens (Fig. 1; objective lens 314 would inherently have a pupil, beam splitter 100).
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach the specified range, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical element and objective lens at a range that decreases measurement error.
Regarding claim 17, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is a beam splitter ([0055] nanostructured beamsplitter 100).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik as applied to claim 14 above and further evidenced by US20100201963A1 by Cramer et al. (cited in the IDS; hereinafter "Cramer").
Regarding claim 15, Gorelik as modified above teaches the optical tool of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the physical characteristic is a critical dimension of a pattern on the substrate or the desired location, or overlay between patterns on a first layer and a second layer of the substrate or the desired location ([0047] optical metrology system 300 may include any type of optical metrology tool known in the art suitable for generating metrology data associated with a sample 302 including overlay).
Further, even if Gorelik does not explicitly teach a pattern of the substrate in the main embodiment, Gorelik does teach the optical metrology system 300 may include an overlay metrology tool to measure relative positions of features on two or more layers of a sample 302. Cramer teaches in order to monitor the lithographic process, it is necessary to measure parameters of the patterned substrate, for example the overlay error between successive layers formed in or on it ([0006]). Thus, the measurement of an overlay between layers of the sample, would imply the substrate is patterned. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure a pattern on a substrate to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gorelik as evidenced by US20100201963A1 by Cramer et al. (cited in the IDS; hereinafter "Cramer").
Regarding claim 18, Gorelik teaches a system for measuring overlay (at least Fig. 3), the system comprising:
an optical element (nanostructured beam splitter 100; Fig. 1 a-d; [0055]) comprising a first portion configured to reflect radiation received from an illumination source (reflective structures 124; [0032]), and a second portion configured to transmit at least a part of the radiation (uncovered surface 126; [0032]) redirected from a patterned substrate (sample 302), the first portion having a higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0032]; [0044] as structures 124 reflect light and uncovered portion 126 transmit light, the coefficients of reflectivity and transmissivity would be inherent);
a sensor (detector 318) configured to receive a diffraction pattern of the radiation caused by the radiation being incident of the patterned substrate ([0052] detector 318 receives diffraction data); and
a processor (processors 328) configured to receive a signal relating to the diffraction pattern from the sensor, and determine overlay associated with the patterned substrate by analyzing the signal ([0047]; [0056] controller 326 includes one or more processors 328; controller 326 may receive data from the detector 318 and may further generate metrology data based on the data from the detector 318).
Further, even arguendo Gorelik does not explicitly teach a patterned substrate in the main embodiment, Gorelik does teach the optical metrology system 300 may include an overlay metrology tool to measure relative positions of features on two or more layers of a sample 302. Cramer teaches in order to monitor the lithographic process, it is necessary to measure parameters of the patterned substrate, for example the overlay error between successive layers formed in or on it ([0006]). Thus, the measurement of an overlay between layers of the sample, would imply the substrate is patterned. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patterned substrate to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 19, Gorelik teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens (Fig. 1; objective lens 314 would inherently have a pupil, beam splitter 100), and
wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and
wherein the distance is measured between a point on the first portion and the entrance pupil or between the first portion and the conjugate pupil (reflective structures 124 which make up the first portion reflect light to the objective lens).
Further, even arguendo Gorelik does not explicitly teach the specified range, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the optical element and objective lens at a range that decreases measurement error.
Regarding claim 20, Gorelik teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region (uncovered portion 126 make up region) of the optical element that receives the diffraction pattern from the patterned substrate and the diffraction pattern comprises first order diffractions comprising information related to the overlay ([0052] detector 318 may receive one or more diffracted orders of light from the sample 302 (e.g., 0-order diffraction, ±1 order diffraction, ±2 order diffraction, and the like); Fig. 3 shows detector 318 receives light transmitted from the structure 100 through uncovered portions 126 thus at least first order diffractions are transmitted by the region; [0055]; [0047] optical metrology system 300 may include any type of optical metrology tool known in the art suitable for generating metrology data associated with a sample 302 including overlay).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelik as evidenced by Cramer as applied to claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 21, Gorelik teaches the system of claim 18, and although Gorelik does not explicitly teach wherein a first portion configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the patterned substrate, Gorelik teaches “The ratio of the reflected beam 108 to the transmitted beam 110 (e.g., the beamsplitting ratio) may be determined by the ratio of the area of the structured surface 104 covered by the reflective structures 124 to the area of the structured surface 104 not covered by the reflective structures 124… Accordingly, any combination of the composition, the thickness 130, the size, and the distribution of the reflective structures 124 (e.g., the pitch 128) may be tailored to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest.” Thus, Gorelik teaches that the optical element may be modified to increase the amount of light reflected. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gorelik such that the first portion is configured to reflect substantially all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source towards the substrate or the desired location in order to provide a selected beamsplitting ratio for a selected range of wavelengths of interest thus improving the measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20150261097A1 by Mathijssen et al. is referenced in the response to arguments section above.
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 KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877