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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 of A. Yvon-Bessette, et al., US18/013,877 (12/29/2022) are pending, under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-17), without traverse, in the reply filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 18-20 drawn to non-elected Group (II) are canceled. The Restriction Requirement is made as FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of Claim term “a hydridosilane compound” and “hydrolysable groups”
The independent claim 1 recites the term of “a hydridosilane compound” and “hydrolysable groups” in the follows context:
A method of preparing a multifunctional organosilicon compound, said method comprising:
reacting (A) an organosilanol compound comprising a functional moiety selected from alkoxysilyl moieties and acryloxy moieties and (B) a hydridosilane compound having at least two hydrolysable groups in the presence of (C) an acetate salt, thereby preparing the multifunctional organosilicon compound.
The specification defines the term of “a hydridosilane compound” and “hydrolysable groups” as:
[0031] As introduced above, component (B) is a hydridosilane compound, i.e., a silicon compound having at least one silicon-bonded hydrogen atom (i.e., a Si-H group) per molecule. The hydridosilane compound (B) also typically comprises at least two hydrolysable groups (i.e., two silicon-bonded groups capable of undergoing hydrolysis, e.g. during a condensation reaction).
Specification at page 8, [0031], emphasis added.
According to the definition in the specification, the term “a hydridosilane compound” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as any compound comprising at least one hydrogen atom bond to a silicon atom; the term “a hydrolysable group” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as any group that capable of reacting with water so as to be replaced with -OH on the silicon atom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Claim 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the term “acetate salt” recited in the independent claim 1 is not clear.
The specification first defines an acetate salt is a complex comprising an acetate anion. See Specification at page 12, [0047], line 1. An acetate anion is a anion resulting from the removal of a proton from the carboxy group of acetic acid (See PubChem for Acetate at page 2, description), thus, acetate anion has a formula of CH3(C=O)O-.
The specification then has other different definition as below:
[0049] In certain embodiments, the acetate salt (C) comprises a complex having the general formula [R6C(O)O]-[M]+, where R6 is a substituted or unsubstituted methyl group and M is an alkali metal.
[0050] It will be appreciated that the moiety indicated by the subformula [R6C(O)O]- may be defined, or otherwise referred to, as an acetate (i.e., an acetate ion, an acetate anion, etc.), which term generally encompasses the conjugate base of an acetic acid. It is to be understood in view of the description of substituent R6 herein, however, that the acetate of the acetate salt (C) may be a higher-order carboxylate anion (e.g. a propionate, butyrate, etc.) or other acetate derivative (e.g. fluoroacetate, dichloroacetate, etc.), which collective fall within the scope of the substituted or unsubstituted methyl groups represented by substituent R6 in the general formula above.
Specification at page 12, [0049]-[0050], emphasis added.
The term “acetate salt” is indefinite because the specification has two different definitions for the term.
Claim 17 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claim recites the limitation of
. . . a yield of the multifunctional organosilicon compound of at least 95% . .
without pointing out which starting material (A or B?) is a basis for calculation of the yield of the produced multifunctional organosilicon compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend on respectively, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Claim 9 is depending on claim 1 which limits the reaction is conducted in the presence of an acetate salt. The specification defines an acetate salt is a complex comprising an acetate anion. See Specification at page 15, [0047], line 1. An acetate anion is a anion resulting from the removal of a proton from the carboxy group of acetic acid (See PubChem for Acetate at page 2, description), thus, acetate anion has a formula of CH3(C=O)O- . Specification at page 15, [0047], line 1.
Therefore, claim 9 recites the limitation of “a substituted methyl” in the following context:
The method of claim 1, wherein the acetate salt (C) comprises a complex having the general formula [R6C(O)O]-[M]+, where R6 is a substituted or unsubstituted methyl group and M is an alkali metal.
cannot further limit claim 1, rather it extends the scope of claim 1.
Regarding to claim 12 which recites the results caused by the active steps limited in claim 11, therefore, claim 12 cannot further limit the scope of claim 11.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 Rejection over D. Eldred, et al, US12378264B (2025) (“Eldred”).
Eldred is effective prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) respecting the subject matter cited as of the filing date of Eldred’s priority document US 62/786,893 (12/31/2018) because:(1) Eldred is a US patent; (2) names other inventors; (3) the subject matter of Eldred relied upon in this rejection is disclosed in Eldred’s priority document US 62/786,893 (12/31/2018). See MPEP § 2154.01; 35 USC § 102(d). Applicant may consider an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) to remove Eldred as prior art.
D. Eldred, et al, US12378264B (2025)(“Eldred”)
Regarding claim 1, Eldred teaches a method of preparing a multifunctional organosilicon compound and the method includes reacting (A) an organosilanol compound and (B) a silane compound having at least two hydrolysable groups. Eldred at col. 9, line 62-69, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 2, Eldred teaches that the organosilanol compound (A) has the formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
162
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, Y comprises a functional moiety selected from alkoxysilyl moieties, acryloxy
moieties, and epoxide moieties; each R is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group; and subscript b is 0, 1, or 2. Eldred at col. 10, line 9-24, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 3, Eldred teaches that:
in some embodiments, functional moiety Y has the formula -D-R2, where D is a divalent linking group and R2 comprises one of the alkoxysilyl groups, acryloxy groups, or epoxide groups described above. In such embodiments, D is an independently selected divalent linking group, such as divalent substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbon group. For example, in some embodiments, D comprises a hydrocarbon moiety having the formula-(CH2)m-, where subscript m is from 1 to 16, alternatively from 1 to 6. In these or other embodiments, D may comprise a substituted hydrocarbon, such as an ether moiety.
Eldred at col. 10, line 48-58, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 4, Eldred teaches that R2 may be an alkoxysilyl group of the formula of
PNG
media_image2.png
133
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where each R3 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group, subscript c is 0, 1, or 2, and R is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group. Eldred at col. 11, line 41-54.
Regarding claim 5, Eldred teaches that R2 may be an acryloxy group of the formula of
PNG
media_image3.png
155
207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where R4 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group or H. Eldred at col. 12, line 16-25.
Regarding claim 6, Eldred teaches that:
With respect to the organosilanol compound (A) as a whole, in certain embodiments, each R is methyl. In these or other embodiments, subscript b is 0 or 1.
Eldred at col. 12, line 29-31, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 7, Eldred teaches that:
In general, the silane compound (B) has the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
98
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where each Z is an independently selected hydrolysable group; X is selected from H and ethylenically unsaturated moieties; each R1 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group; and subscript a is 1, 2, or 3.
Eldred at col. 13, line 16-27, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 8, Eldred teaches that each of the hydrolysable group in the silane compound (B) can be chloride. Eldred at col. 14, line 11-12, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 13, Eldred teaches that the reaction of components (A) and (B) may be carried out in the presence of a carrier vehicle or solvent. Eldred at col. 23, line 23-24, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 14-15, Eldred teaches that:
In some embodiments, the vehicle comprises, alternatively is, an organic solvent. Examples of the organic solvent include those comprising an alcohol, . . .; an aromatic hydrocarbon, such as benzene, toluene, and xylene; an aliphatic hydrocarbon, such as heptane, hexane, and octane.
Eldred at col. 54, line 16-23, emphasis added.
Regarding claim 16, Eldred teaches that the method further comprises isolating and/or purifying the multifunctional organosilicon compound from the reaction product. Eldred at col. 24, line 57-59, emphasis added.
Eldred teaches that working examples for his method, such as Example 4:
Example 4: Preparation of Trifunctional-AMA Si-H Converter
A 200 mL 3-neck flask is equipped with a magnetic stir bar, a nitrogen outlet and a thermocouple, and an addition funnel. The flask is charged with HSiCl3 (1.4 mL; 14 mmol) and diethyl ether (75 mL) to give a solution, which is stirred and cooled to 0° C. using an ice bath. The addition funnel is charged with AMA-Silanol1 (10.4 g; 40 mmol), pyridine (3.75 mL; 40.7 mmol), and diethyl ether (~5 mL; total volume of 20 mL), which are then added dropwise to the stirred solution in the flask over the course of ~25 min to give a reaction mixture. A white precipitate forms upon addition. After the addition is complete, GCMS indicates >99% silanol conversion and formation of condensation products. The reaction mixture is then filtered through a 0.45 μm frit into a separatory funnel to remove precipitate (salt), the filter cake washed with diethyl ether (~50 mL), and the combined organics washed with HCl (1 M; 20 mL), sat. NaHCO3 (20 mL), and brine (20 mL), dried with MgSO4 (~2 g), filtered, and concentrated (rotary evaporator) to give a clear liquid, which is then dried under high vacuum to give the product (recovered: 10.8 g; yield: 95%; purity: 77% via GCMS).
Eldred at col. 62, Example 39-61, Example 4, emphasis added.
Examiner schematically summarize Eldred Example 4 as below:
PNG
media_image6.png
341
2190
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Difference Between Eldred and The Claims
The Eldred Example 4 method comprising reacting of :
AMA-Silanol that is the only organosilanol compound used in all the working examples in the instant specification, which maps the formula in claim 2 as each R is methyl group, a is 1, Y is
PNG
media_image7.png
184
373
media_image7.png
Greyscale
;
and
a hydridosilane compound which is trichlorosilane having at least two hydrolysable groups.
The Eldred Example 4 method differs the instant claim 1 only in that the Eldred Example 4 method is not conducted in the presence of an acetate salt rather it is conducted in the presence of pyridine.
Obvious Rationales of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 and 9-10 are obvious because one ordinary skill seeking trifunctional-AMA Si-H converter is motivated to modify the Eldred Example 4 by replacing pyridine with sodium acetate, thus arrive at a method meeting each and every limitation of claims 1-2 and 5-6 and 9-10, therefore, claims 1-2 and 5-6 and 9-10 are obvious. One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable of expectation of success because Eldred teaches that:
As understood by those of skill in the art, reaction of an Si-OH group with an Si-Cl group does not require a catalyst, but will typically be performed in the presence of a base ( e.g. pyridine, etc.) to neutralize the HCI generated.
See Eldred col 16, line 55-59, emphasis added.
Thus, Eldred teaches that the function of pyridine in the Eldred Example 4 is to neutralize HCl generated by the reaction, therefore, one ordinary skill is motivated to employ an organic base (such as sodium acetate) for the HCl quench in view of J. March, Advanced Organic Chemistry Reactions, Mechanisms and Structure 248-272 (4th ed., 1992) (“March”). March teaches that for Table 8.1, in which acids are listed in order of decreasing strength, the rule is that any acid will react with any base in the table that is below it but not with any above it. (March at Page 249). March at Page 249. Per March’s Table 8.1, HCl (pKa of conjugate acid is ) is listed higher in Table 8.1 than acetic acid, (RCOOH) (Pka 4-5). March at page 251, Table 8.1. Thus, one of ordinary skill is apprised that HCl will react with and be neutralized by acetate. In other words, it is clear to one of ordinary skill from March that acetate salt such as sodium acetate is a suitable reagent to quench and neutralize HCl.
Rationales supporting the modification is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I(B).
Claim 3 is obvious because Y in AMA-Silanol is
PNG
media_image7.png
184
373
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, which maps R1-D- in claim 3 as R1 is acryloxy group, D is –(CH2)3–.
Claim 4 is obvious one ordinary skill seeking a multifunctional organosilicon comprising an alkoxysilyl group is further motivated to replace AMA-Silanol with the follows silanol in the above proposed method:
PNG
media_image8.png
288
594
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thus arrive at a method meeting each and every limitation of claim 4, therefore, claim 4 is obvious. One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Eldred teaches that
PNG
media_image2.png
133
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is an alternative of the
PNG
media_image3.png
155
207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 7-8 are obvious because HSiCl3 maps the formula in claims 7-8 as c is 3 and each Z is Cl.
Claims 11-12 are obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to further modify the proposed method by mixing of HSiCl3 with sodium acetate and then adding AMA-Silanol to the formed mixture, thus arrive at the claimed method. One ordinary skill is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because mixing of HSiCl3 with sodium acetate can neutralize any HCl formed due to hydrolysis of HSiCl3 during storing and neutralization of HCl formed by the reaction would not be affected. Claim 12 is obvious because an acetoxyhydridosilane would be formed once the HSiCl3 is mixed with sodium acetate; and the acetoxyhydridosilane would react with AMA-Silanol once AMA-Silanol is added to the mixture of HSiCl3 and sodium acetate. This is a procedural burden shifting. The requirement that the prior art necessarily teaches the alleged inherent (functional) element still remains. MPEP § 2112(IV). However, the burden is shifted to Applicant to demonstrate the alleged inherent element is not necessarily present in the cited prior art. Stated differently, when the examiner "has reason to believe" that the prior art reference inherently teaches the functional limitation, the burden shifts to the patent applicant to show that the functional limitation cannot be met by the prior art reference. MPEP 2112(V), see also, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Chudik, 674 F. App'x 1011, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (both citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 58 C.C.P.A. 1027 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Claims 13-14 are obvious because the proposed method is conducted in the presence of a solvent diethyl ether which is nonpolar. The claims use “or” language, therefore, prior art teaches one alternative meets the claims.
Claim 15 is obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to further modify the proposed method by replacing diethyl ether with xylene or heptane because Eldred teaches that xylene or heptane can also be used as solvent for the reaction. The claim use “or” language, therefore, prior art teaches one alternative meets the claims.
Claim 16 is obvious because one ordinary is motivated to further isolate the trifunctional-AMA Si-H converter formed in the proposed method as taught by Eldred. The claim uses “or” language, therefore, prior art teaches one alternative meets the claims.
Claim 17 is obvious because Eldred teaches that the yield of the product is 95%. The claim uses “or” language, therefore, prior art teaches one alternative meets the claims.
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).
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection over US12378264B (2025)(“Eldred”)
Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 13,16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3-5, 7-9 of US12378264B (2025).
The Conflicting Claims
The conflicting claim 1 claims a multifunctional organosilicon compound having the
following general formula
PNG
media_image9.png
192
386
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The conflicting claim 3 further claims:
The multifunctional organosilicon compound of claim 1, wherein at least one Y is of formula -D-R2 , where each D is an independently selected divalent linking group and each R2 independently comprises an alkoxysilyl group or an acryloxy group.
The conflicting claim 4 further claims:
The multifunctional organosilicon compound of claim 3, wherein in at least one moiety Y: (i) divalent linking group D comprises a hydrocarbon group of formula -(CH2)m-, where subscript mis from 1 to 6; (ii) divalent linking group D comprises an ether moiety; or (iii) both (i) and (ii).
The conflicting claim 5 further claims:
The multifunctional organosilicon compound of claim 3, wherein: (i) R2 of at least one moiety Y is an alkoxysilyl group having the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
133
182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where each R3 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group, subscript c is 0, 1, or 2, and each R is as defined above;
(ii) R2 of at least one moiety Y is an acryloxy group having the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
155
207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where R4 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group or H.
The conflicting claim 7 claims:
a method of preparing a multifunctional organosilicon compound, said method comprising: reacting (A) an organosilanol compound and (B) a silane compound having at least two hydrolysable groups, thereby preparing the multifunctional organosilicon compound; wherein the multifunctional organosilicon compound is the multifunctional organosilicon compound of claim 1.
The conflicting claim 8 further claims:
The method of claim 7, wherein the organosilanol compound (A) has the following formula
PNG
media_image1.png
162
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The conflicting claims 9 further claims:
The method of claim 7, wherein the silane compound (B) has the following formula
PNG
media_image4.png
98
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where each Z is an independently selected hydrolysable group; X is selected from H and ethylenically unsaturated moieties; each R1 is an independently selected hydrocarbyl group; and subscript a is 2 or 3.
Therefore, one ordinary skill would be appraised that HSiCl3 is a species of the formula in the conflicting claims 9 and it can be used to prepared the multifunctional organosilicon compound of the conflicting claims 1-5 through practice the method of the conflicting claims 7-8.
Difference between the Conflicting Claims and the Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 13, 16
Practicing the method of the conflicting claims 7-8 with HSiCl3 as the silane compound to prepare the multifunctional organosilicon compound of the conflicting claims 1-5 differs the instant claims 1-5 only in that the conflicting claims 7-8 does not claim to conduct the claimed method in the presence of an acetate salt.
Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 13, 16 are Obvious
Claims 1-5, 9-10 are obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to add a basic salt such as sodium acetate to the reaction mixture, thus arrive a method meeting each and every limitation of claims 1-5 and 9-10, therefore, 1-5, 9-10 are obvious. One ordinary is motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because reaction between reaction of an Si-OH group and an Si-Cl group would form HCl as a byproduct, therefore, one ordinary skill is motivated to employ an organic base (such as acetate) for the HCl quench in view of J. March, Advanced Organic Chemistry Reactions, Mechanisms and Structure 248-272 (4th ed., 1992) (“March”). March teaches that for Table 8.1, in which acids are listed in order of decreasing strength, the rule is that any acid will react with any base in the table that is below it but not with any above it. (March at Page 249). March at Page 249. Per March’s Table 8.1, HCl (pKa of conjugate acid is ) is listed higher in Table 8.1 than acetic acid, (RCOOH) (Pka 4-5). March at page 251, Table 8.1. Thus, one of ordinary skill is apprised that HCl will react with and be neutralized by acetate. In other words, it is clear to one of ordinary skill from March that acetate salt such as sodium acetate is a suitable reagent to quench and neutralize HCl.
Claims 13 and 16 are obvious because one ordinary skill is also conduct the reaction in the presence of a solvent and/or isolate the final product formed by the reaction.
Terminal Disclaimer
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 AMA-Silanol is an organosilanol compound having the general formula
PNG
media_image5.png
131
307
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See Eldred at col. 57, line 25-34.