DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 16, and 20-22 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended, claims 5, 12-15, 17-19 have been canceled, and claims 21 and 22 have been added.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 16, 21, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14, and 15 of copending Application No. 17/320,398 (U.S. 2021/0294217) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending claims are directed to actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin compositions comprising a resin, a compound selected from (I), (II), and (III) where compound (I) is represented by any one of General Formula (Ia), and a compound represented by either General Formula (1) or General Formula (2). Copending claims of ‘398 do not specify the amount of the compounds (I)-(III) and therefore encompasses the instantly claimed range.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2015/0331314) as evidenced by Iwato (U.S. 2015/0355541) or Tsubaki et al. (U.S. 2014/0199617).
Yamaguchi et al. teaches an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising (A) a resin having a group capable of decomposing by an action of an acid to produce a polar group (claim 1), (C1) a compound containing a group capable of generating a first acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation and a group capable of generating a second acidic functional group different from the first acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, and (C2) at least one compound containing two or more groups selected from the group consisting of a group capable of generating a structure represented by the following formula (a) upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, a group capable of generating a structure represented by the following formula (b) upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, a group capable of generating a structure represented by the following formula (c) upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation, and a group capable of generating a structure represented by the following formula (d) upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation [0092] wherein a specific example of (C1) includes the following compound (C-1):
PNG
media_image1.png
124
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0807] which is equivalent to a compound (I) which generates an acid upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation having a first and second acidic moiety in which a compound PI formed by substituting the cationic moieties with H+ provides an acid dissociation constant a2 of about 1 which is larger than the acid dissociation constant a1 of about -10 with a difference between a1 and a2 being about 11 based on pages 132 and 136 of the instant specification of instant claims 1, 3, and 4, specifically a compound represented by General Formula (Ia) of instant claim 1 when M11+ and M12+ are each organic cations, A11- is represented by General Formula B-3 where RX4 is a substituent, L1 is a divalent linking group, and A12- is represented by General Formula B-5 where RX1 is a substituent in which compound PIa formed by substituting M11+ and M12+ with H+ has an acid dissociation constant a2 larger than the acid dissociation constant a1. Yamaguchi et al. also teaches the composition of the present invention may contain a compound capable of generating an acid upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation (hereinafter, sometimes referred to as “acid generator” or “compound (B)”), which is different from the compounds (C1) and (C2) [0475] wherein a specific example of the anion includes the following formula (A-I3):
PNG
media_image2.png
100
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0526] wherein n2 can be 0 [0531], Rf is preferably CF3 [0550], R2 is a divalent linking group [00529] preferably an alkylene group having a carbon number of 1 to 5 [0548], n1 can be 1 [0531], and R1 is an alkyl group [0528] preferably a methyl group [0534] which is equivalent to a compound represented by General Formula (1) of instant claims 1 and 6 when M3+ is an organic cation, A3- is an anionic functional group represented by General Formula (C-7) when Lc is an alkylene group having a substituent, La is a single bond, and Ra is a monovalent organic group, wherein a compound Q formed by substituting M3+ with H+ provides an acid dissociation constant of the acidic moiety of -0.23 which is substantially close to the instantly claimed -0.22.
Yamaguchi et al. further teaches the content of at least one of the compounds (C1) and (C2) (in the case of a plurality of kinds of compounds are present, the total thereof) is preferably from 0.001 to 30 mass % based on the solid content of the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition [0469] and the content of the acid generator in the composition is preferably from 0 to 35 mass % based on the total solid content of the composition [0568] which overlap with the instantly claimed amount and content ratio, specifically, more than 20.0% by mass and 70% by mass or less of compound (I) of instant claim 1, specifically more than 22.7% by mass of instant claim 2, even more specifically 23.0% by mass or more and less than 26.0% by mass of instant claim 16 and a content ratio T (i.e. amount of compound (I)/amount of compound (1)) of 15.0 to 40.0 of instant claims 8 and 16, specifically 23.0 to 40.0 of instant claim 9. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, it is well known in the art that having a large amount of acid generator based on the solid content, e.g. 30 to 50 mass%, effectively enhances resolution, LWR, and top roughness as evidenced by Iwato [0215-0216] as well as obtain high sensitivity as evidenced by Tsubaki et al. [0743-0744]. Yamaguchi et al. also teaches an object of the present invention is to provide a pattern forming method ensuring that the roughness performance such as line width roughness, the local pattern dimension uniformity and the exposure latitude are excellent and reduction in the film thickness of the pattern part formed by development, so-called film loss, can be suppressed [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific teachings of Yamaguchi et al. and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of increasing the amount of acid generators used based on the known benefits of improved LWR as evidenced by Iwato and Tsubaki.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Yamaguchi et al. teaches the pattern forming method (preferably a negative pattern forming method) of the present invention comprises at least: (i) a step of forming a film (resist film) by using the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of the present invention, (ii) a step of irradiating (exposing) the film with an actinic ray or radiation, and (iii) a step of developing the film irradiated with an actinic ray or radiation by using a developer (preferably an organic solvent-containing developer) [0726].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2015/0331314) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ohashi et al. (U.S. 2014/0322650).
With regard to claim 7, Yamaguchi et al. teaches the above composition comprising a compound (I) and a compound represented by General Formula (1).
Yamaguchi et al. does not teach a compound represented by General Formula (2) and having an acid dissociation constant of an acidic moiety represented by HA4 of compound R represented by HA4-Lb-M4+-(Rb)m formed by substituting A4- with HA4 in General Formula (2) to be -2.0 or less.
However, Ohashi et al. teaches a negative pattern is formed by coating a resist composition comprising a polymer comprising recurring units of formulae (1) and (2) and a photoacid generator of formula (3) onto a substrate, baking, exposure, PEB and developing in an organic solvent [abstract] in which a specific example of formula (3) includes the following PAG-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
208
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0159] which is equivalent to General Formula (2) of instant claim 1 when M4+ is a sulfur ion, m is 2, Rb each independently represented an aryl group, Lb is a divalent linking group, and A4- is an anionic functional group represented by General Formula (C-7) when Lc is a (substituted) branched alkylene group wherein a compound R represented by HA4-Lb-M4+-(Rb)m formed by substituting A4- with HA4 in General Formula (2) has an acid dissociation constant of -3.09. Ohashi et al. also teaches a high dissolution contrast is achieved when a resist composition comprising a polymer comprising specific recurring units and a photoacid generator of specific structure is subjected to exposure, PEB and organic solvent development. By virtue of controlled acid diffusion, the pattern forming process using the resist composition and involving organic solvent development is successful in achieving improvements in DOF, MEF, and CDU [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yamaguchi et al. to further include a compound (3) of Ohashi et al. and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of combining equally suitable compounds for the sought invention in order to achieve high dissolution contrast and improved DOF, MEF, and CDU.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2015/0331314) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (U.S. 2017/0003591).
With regard to claims 21 and 22, Yamaguchi et al. teaches the above compound (C-1) [0807]. Yamaguchi et al. also teaches the above compound (C-1) is a specific example of ionic compound (C1) in which the cation of compound (C1) includes a cation represented by the following formula (ZI) [0322]:
PNG
media_image4.png
77
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0322] where each of R201, R202 and R203 independently represents an organic group [0323] and the organic group of R201, R202 and R203 includes an aryl group (preferably having a carbon number of 6 to 15), a linear or branched alkyl group (preferably having a carbon number of 1 to 10), a cycloalkyl group (preferably having a carbon number of 3 to 15), and the like. At least one of R201, R202 and R203 is preferably an aryl group, and it is more preferred that those three members all are an aryl group [0327-0328] and the aryl group, alkyl group and cycloalkyl group as R201, R202 and R203 may further have a substituent. Examples of the substituent include, but are not limited to, a nitro group, a halogen atom such as fluorine atom, a carboxyl group, a hydroxyl group, an amino group, a cyano group, an alkoxy group (preferably having a carbon number of 1 to 15), a cycloalkyl group (preferably having a carbon number of 3 to 15), an aryl group (preferably having a carbon number of 6 to 14), an alkoxycarbonyl group (preferably having a carbon number of 2 to 7), an acyl group (preferably having a carbon number of 2 to 12), and an alkoxycarbonyloxy group (preferably having a carbon number of 2 to 7) [0329].
Yamaguchi et al. does not teach organic cations represented by General Formula (ZaI) where at least one of R201 to R203 represents an aryl group which is substituted with at least one alkyl halide group.
However, Mochizuki et al. teaches an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition that contains a resin, an acid generator, an organic acid, and a solvent [abstract] a preferable embodiment of the acid generator include an onium compound [0211] and examples of the preferable onium compound according to the invention include a sulfonium compound represented by Formula (7) below or an iodonium compound represented by Formula (8). These compounds preferably have at least one electron-withdrawing group in this cation portion, in view of sensitivity, resolution, a pattern shape, and LER improvement in a micro pattern [0214] and examples of the electron-withdrawing group include a fluorine atom, a halogen atom, a fluoroalkyl group, a cyano group, a hydroxyl group, and a nitro group [0215] The acid generator according to the invention is preferably a compound represented by Formula (I) below [0226]:
PNG
media_image5.png
206
316
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0226] wherein Ra1 and Ra2 each independently represent a substituent; n1 and n2 each independently represent an integer of 0 to 5; n3 represents an integer of 1 to 5; Ra3 represents a fluorine atom or a group having one or more fluorine atom [0228-0231] and X- is an organic anion [0218], and examples of the group having a fluorine atom include groups in which an alkyl group, a cycloalkyl group, an alkoxy group, a cycloalkyloxy group, an alkoxycarbonyl group, and an alkylsulfonyl group as Ra1 and Ra2 are substituted with a fluorine atom. Preferable examples thereof include a fluorine atom, CF3, C2F5, C3F7, C4F9, C5F11, C6F13, C7F15, C8F17, CH2CF3, CH2CH2CF3, CH2C2F5, CH2CH2C2F5, CH2C3F7, CH2CH2C3F7, CH2C4F9, and CH2CH2C4F9, and more preferable example thereof include CF3 [0252] and a specific example of the cation of formula (I) includes the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
147
155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0257] which is equivalent to the organic cation represented by General Formula (ZaI) of instant claims 21 and 22 when R201 is an organic group and R202 and R203 are aryl groups having an alkyl halide group.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cation of compound (C-1) of Yamaguchi et al. for the cation of Mochizuki et al. having CF3 through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components in order to achieve optimum sensitivity, resolution, pattern shape, and LER.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2010/0255418) in view of Iwato (U.S. 2015/0355541) or Tsubaki et al. (U.S. 2014/0199617).
Yamaguchi et al. teaches an actinic-ray- or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprises a basic compound (C) having n basic groups and m groups that when exposed to actinic rays or radiation, generate an acid [abstract] and further comprising a resin (B) whose dissolution rate in an alkali developer is increased by the action of an acid [0018] (claim 20) wherein a specific example of compound (C) includes the following:
PNG
media_image7.png
218
604
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[0071] which is equivalent to a compound that generates an acid upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation including a compound (III) having two structural moieties X and nonionic moiety capable of neutralizing an acid Z represented by General Formula (IIIa) of instant claim 20 when each M31+ is the same organic cation, each A31- is the same anionic functional group, L3 and L4 are divalent linking groups, and R2x is a monovalent substituent. Yamaguchi et al. teaches basic compound (C) is contained in the composition of the present invention in an amount of generally 0.001 to 20 mass %, based on the total solid of the composition [0072].
Yamaguchi et al. does not explicitly teach a content of the compound (III) represented by General Formula (IIIa) is more than 20.0% by mass and 70.0% by mass or less with respect to a total solid content.
However, Iwato et al. teaches that having a large amount of acid generator based on the solid content, e.g. 30 to 50 mass%, effectively enhances resolution, LWR, and top roughness [0215-0216]. Tsubaki et al. teaches the content of the acid generator being 21% by mass to 70% by mass on the basis of all the solids content of the composition means that the concentration of the acid generator is very high, by which the reaction efficiency of secondary electrons and the acid generator is high, and so presumably high sensitivity can be obtained [0744].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the amount of the compound (C) of Yamaguchi et al. and arrive at the instant claims based on the teachings of Iwato or Tsubaki in order to enhance resolution, LWR, top roughness, and sensitivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 16, 2025 with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 16, and 18 over Yamaguchi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yamaguchi does not disclose or render obvious the actinic ray- or radiation sensitive resin composition of the present invention. Specifically, the compound represented by General Formula (1) specified in claim 1 does not include (z3) of Yamaguchi. Therefore the invention is not obvious over Yamaguchi.
The Examiner agrees that formula (z3) of Yamaguchi no longer meets the definitions of claimed formula (1). However, Yamaguchi still teaches other anions which are obvious over the instant claims, specifically formula (A-I) [0526] when A3- of formula (1) is represented by formula (C-7). Therefore, instant claims are still obvious over the teachings of Yamaguchi.
Applicant separately argues dependent claim 7, with the amendment to claim 1, General Formula (2) does not include the compound disclosed in Ohashi.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 defines A4- as “an anionic functional group selected from the group consisting of groups represented by General Formulae (C-1), (C-2), (C-4), and (C-5) to (C-7)” in which Ohashi’s PAG-1 meets the claimed limitation when A4- is General Formula (C-7) when Lc is a (substituted) branched alkylene. The instant specification recites on page 4 “in a case where the group is cited without specifying whether it is substituted or unsubstituted, the group includes both a group having no substituent and a group having a substituent as long as this does not impair the spirit of the present invention”. Thus, the instantly claimed linear, branched, or cyclic alkylene group is interpreted as both unsubstituted and substituted. Therefore, Ohashi’s PAG-1 is still equivalent to Applicant’s General Formula (2).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 20 over Yamaguchi in view of Iwato or Tsubaki have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yamaguchi discloses a photocleavable compound corresponding to Formula (III) of the present claim 20 as a base compound which is usually 0.001 to 20 mass% [0072]. Yamaguchi also discloses an acid generator in addition to the above base compound [0073-0190]. On the other hand, Iwato discloses that the content of the acid generator is “30 to 50 mass% based on the total soldi content” [0215-0216]. Meanwhile, Iwato describes that a base compound may be introduced separately and the content is usually 0.001 to 10 mass% [0246-0248]. Tsubaki discloses the content of acid generator is “21 to 70 mass% based on the total solid content” [0743] and a base compound may be introduced separately with the content usually 0.001 to 10 mass% [0828-0830]. In Iwato and Tsubaki, there is no clear definition of the acid generator and the base compound, but typically, the acid generator is introduced as the function of decomposing the protecting group of the acid-decomposing resin, and the basic compound is introduced to function as a quencher. No attempt is made to apply the content of the acid generator of Iwato and Tsubaki to the component that functions as a basis compound (quencher) in Yamaguchi when the content of acid generators of Iwato and Tsubaki is applied to Yamaguchi. In addition, when referring to Example 8 of Yamaguchi (acid generator is not used), it is shown that exposure latitude and LER are inferior to those of the other examples which suggests that when the content of the acid generator disclosed in Iwato and Tsubaki is applied to Yamaguchi, the original function of the acid generator is impaired. This teaches away from applying the content disclosed by Iwato and Tsubaki to the content of Yamaguchi.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamaguchi et al. teaches “basic compound (C) is contained in the composition of the present invention in an amount of generally 0.001 to 20 mass %, based on the total solid of the composition” [0072]. This means that Yamaguchi’s basic compound (C) can be used in an amount more than 20 mass% as instantly claimed. Iwato and Tsubaki also teach large contents of acid generators. The Examiner does acknowledge that Yamaguchi refers to its compound (C) as a basic compound, Yamaguchi characterizes it has “having one or more basic groups and two or more acid generating groups, provided that the number of acid generating groups is greater than the number of basic groups” [0050]. Thus, the compound (C) necessarily generates an acid and can therefore also be considered an acid generator. Yamaguchi also teaches in Example 8, the resin composition does not need to contain the compound which generates an acid (A) [0521]. Further, Iwato and Tsubaki teach it is preferred for the resin composition to contain a basic compound [0223] and [0782] respectively, which means they are not a requirement for the corresponding inventions and can therefore be omitted. Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Iwato or Tsubaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of compound (C) of Yamaguchi through routine experimentation in the art and arrive at the instant claims with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the results provided for Example 8 of Yamaguchi lie within all of the example compositions for both exposure latitude and LER. Specifically, out of the 15 examples conducted, the lowest exposure latitude is 10.6 while the highest is 17.4 whereas Example 8 is 14.9. The same is true for LER, the lowest being 6.1 and the highest 8.5 while Example 8 is 7.5. Therefore Applicants’ argument is not persuasive and Yamaguchi does not in fact teach away from combining the prior art.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over copending application 17/320,398 is maintained for reasons of record except for instant claim 20. Copending application ‘398 has been amended and no longer recites a compound encompassing General Formula (IIIa) so the double patenting rejection over claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Due to the cancelation of claim 19, the objection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2013/0136900, U.S. 2015/0355539, U.S. 2014/0349221, U.S. 2013/0302736, U.S. 2004/0234888, and JP2005275153.
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 ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 EST M-F.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/Anna Malloy/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712