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 1-50 of A. Nishimura et al., US 18/024,818 (Sept. 7, 2021) are pending. Claims 3, 6-8, 15, 19-24, 26-38, and 43-45 to non-elected Groups (II)-(VII) are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). Claim 49 is withdrawn as not reading on the elected species of lithium aluminum hydride. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 46, 47 and 50 are under examination on the merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group (I), (now claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 46-50), without traverse, in the Reply to Restriction Requirement filed on November 28, 2025. Claims 3, 6-8, 15, 19-24, 26, 27, 281, 29-38, and 43-45 to non-elected Groups (II)-(VII) are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). In view of the foregoing, the Examiner’s restriction/election requirement is made FINAL.
Pursuant to the election of species requirement, Applicant elected,
(1) a single species of halosilane raw material (CO): dodecachlorocyclohexasilane;
(2) a single species of reducing agent (R2): lithium aluminum hydride; and
(3) a single species of a hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX): cyclohexasilane
without traverse. Of the elected group, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 46, 47, and 50 read on the elected species. The elected species was searched and found to be anticipated by X. Lu et al., 27 Chemistry of Materials, 6053-6058 (2015) (“Lu”). MPEP § 803.02(III)(C)(2)) and E. Hengge et al., 16 Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 403 (1977). The search was not further extended. In view of cited art, the election of species requirement is given effect and claim 49 is provisionally withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as not reading on the elected species of lithium aluminum hydride. See, MPEP § 803.02.
The Claimed Invention
Claim 1 is schematically summarized by the Examiner below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification working Example 1-1 is summarized by the Examiner below to give context to the claim 1 language.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specification at pages 100-102.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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, 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).
Indefinite Claim Language
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 46, 47 and 50 are rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, as indefinite because the claim 1 removing step (T2) is unclear. Claim 1 requires that “a reaction solution of the reducing step (P1) is subjected to one or more steps” (T1), (T2), (T3) or (T4), in the alternative, as follows:
Claim 1 . . . a removing step in which a reaction solution of the reducing step (P1) is subjected to one or more steps selected from the following (T1) to (T4) to remove the reducing agent (R2) and/or a resulting material of the reducing agent (R2) contained in the reaction solution:
(T1) separating step of a solid and a liquid;
(T2) separating step of one liquid and another comprising a reaction solution, a concentrated solution of the reaction solution, or a washing solution of the reaction solution or the concentrated solution of the reaction solution;
(T3) contacting step with an acid aqueous solution; and
(T4) distilling step of the hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX).
The issue is that (T2) recites the physical method step of “separating step of one liquid and another comprising” but then purports to limit this method step by reciting alternative compositions of matter. For example, the claim 1 (T2) alternative of “separating step of one liquid and another comprising . . . a washing solution of the reaction solution” does not make sense because “a washing solution of the reaction solution” is not a physical method step, but rather a composition of matter. In other words, it is not clear to one of skill how to practice “separating step of one liquid and another comprising . . . a washing solution of the reaction solution” because “a washing solution of the reaction solution” involves no physical manipulations.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9-14, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 46, 47 and 50 do not cure the issue. Claim 50 has the same issue with respect to step (T2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
§ 102(a)(1) Rejection over X. Lu et al., 27 Chemistry of Materials, 6053-6058 (2015) (“Lu”)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 13, 16-18, 25, 39-42, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by X. Lu et al., 27 Chemistry of Materials, 6053-6058 (2015) (“Lu”). Lu discloses synthesis of cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) as follows:
[(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] (116.95 g, 91.2 mmol) was added to a jacketed reaction vessel and charged with diethyl ether (450 mL). The mixture was thoroughly stirred with an overhead mixer and cooled to 10 °C. LiAlH4 (455.8 mmol, 442.5 mL) as a 1.03 M solution in diethyl ether was slowly added to the reaction via cannula. The reaction mixture was maintained at 20 °C and stirred for 16 h.
Solids were removed by filtration and washed with diethyl ether (200 mL). The filtrate was concentrated under vacuum and the crude product was extracted with pentane (100 mL). The pentane extract was washed at room temperature with 9N H2SO4 (3 × 50 mL) by dropwise addition and was accompanied by vigorous gas evolution. The organic layer was dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and fractionally distilled under reduced pressure to give cyclohexasilane (14.0 g, 77.5 mmol, 85%, >99% pure by 1H NMR).
Lu at pages 6053-6054 (emphasis added).
Lu’s above process is summarized by the Examiner as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lu at pages 6053-6054. The correspondence between Lu’s synthesis of cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) and claim 1 is mapped above and Lu meets each and every limitation of claim 1. Note that Lu’s above workup steps 1-5 meet each of the claim 1 alternatives of:
(T1) separating step of a solid and a liquid;
(T2) separating step of one liquid and another comprising a reaction solution, a concentrated solution of the reaction solution, or a washing solution of the reaction solution or the concentrated solution of the reaction solution;
(T3) contacting step with an acid aqueous solution; and
(T4) distilling step of the hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX).
where only one of Lu’s steps 1-5 is required to anticipate claim 1.
Lu’s synthesis of cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) as above meets the following elected species:
(2) a single species of reducing agent (R2): lithium aluminum hydride; and
(3) a single species of a hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX): cyclohexasilane
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are clearly anticipated.
Claims 9-11 are anticipated because Lu’s reducing step (P1) is carried out in the presence of diethyl ether.
Respecting claim 13, Lu employs about 890 ml (0.890 L) of ether per 91 mmol (0.091 mol) of halosilane [(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14], which falls within the claim 13 range. Claim 13 is therefore anticipated.
The further limitations of claim 16 are clearly met by Lu.
The limitations of claim 17 and 18 are met because Lu’s reduction of [(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] of with lithium aluminum hydride forms an aluminum complex as a byproduct. These appear to be the “solids were removed by filtration”. Lu at pages 6053, col. 2. This is evidenced by V. Ponomarev et al., 21 Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Division of chemical science, 1328-1331 (1972). Ponomarev teaches that the reduction of chlorosilanes by lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) occurs with formation of the aluminum complex and/or aluminum chloride complex as follows.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ponomarev at page 1330.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The further limitations of claim 25 are clearly met because Lu teaches “[s]olids were removed by filtration and washed with diethyl ether (200 mL)”. Lu at page 6053, col. 2.
The limitations of claims 39-42 are clearly met. Respecting claim 39-40, Lu’s [(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] meets the structural limitations of claim 1 (C1).
Claim 1 . . . a polyhalosilane compound (C1) comprising a Si-Si bond and a Si-X bond (X represents a halogen atom) in the same molecule . . .
and it is per claim 40 “a cyclic halosilane compound” and Lu’s product (Si6H12) is, per claim 40, “a cyclic hydrogenated silane compound”. Respecting claims 41 and 42, Lu’s product (Si6H12) is “cyclohexasilane”.
The limitations of claim 47 and 48 are clearly met.
§ 102(a)(2) Rejection over R. Elgammal et al., US 2022/0153595 (2022) (“Elgammal”)
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13, 16, 25, 39-42, 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by R. Elgammal et al., US 2022/0153595 (2022) (“Elgammal”). Elgammal teaches a method of producing a substituted cyclosilane by combining in a solvent the following: (i) halogenated cyclosilane, (ii) at least one of tri-alkyl or tri-aryl silane, and (iii) a complexing agent including at least one of ammonium halide or phosphonium halide, the halogenated cyclosilane reacting to produce the substituted cyclosilane. Elgammal at page 1, [0002].
Elgammal teaches that the tri-alkyl or tri-aryl silane serves as a reducing agent of the halogen atoms on the halogenated cyclosilane such that hydrogen atoms from the tri-alkyl or tri-aryl silane substitute for the halogen atoms and that the complexing agent serves as a catalytic reaction initiator and is not consumed in the reaction. Elgammal at page 2, [0029]. Elgammal summarizes the reaction as follows:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Elgammal at page 2, [0030]. Elgammal teaches working Example 1 as follows:
[0034] 10 mmol of [NEt4]2 [Si6Cl14] was added to 100 mL of dibutyl ether under a blanket of N2 and a stirring rate of 600 rpm at 25° C. To the reaction mixture was added 1 mmol of [NEt4]Cl, followed immediately by addition of 140 mmol of Et3SiH. The reaction mixture was heated to 60° C. and was complete after 12 hours. Si6H12 was isolated from the reaction mixture by distillation.
Elgammal at page 2, [0034].
Elgammal’s working Example 1 meets each and every limitation of claim 1, where [NEt4]2 [Si6Cl14] meets the claim 1 limitation of
Claim 1 . . . a polyhalosilane compound (C1) comprising a Si-Si bond and a Si-X bond (X represents a halogen atom) in the same molecule . . .
and Elgammal’s Et3SiH meets the claim 1 limitation of “reducing agent (R2)” and the distillation meets the claim 1 alternative of “(T4) distilling step of the hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX)”. Claims 1, 2 and 5 are therefore clearly anticipated.
Claims 9-11 are anticipated because Elgammal’s reducing step (P1) is carried out in the presence of dibutyl ether.
Respecting claim 13, Elgammal employs about 100 ml (0.1 L) of ether per 10 mmol (0.01 mol) of halosilane [NEt4]2 [Si6Cl14], which falls within the claim 13 range. Claim 13 is therefore anticipated.
The further limitations of claim 16 are clearly met by Elgammal.
Claim 25 is anticipated because claim 1 step (T1) is an alternative step that is not required by claim 1 and therefore not required in claim 25 by virtue of claim 25’s dependency. In other words, claim 25 only further limits an unrequired, alternative claim 1 step that is not the basis of § 102 rejection.
The limitations of claims 39-42 are clearly met. Respecting claim 39-40, Elgammal’s [NEt4]2 [Si6Cl14] meets the structural limitations of claim 1 (C1).
Claim 1 . . . a polyhalosilane compound (C1) comprising a Si-Si bond and a Si-X bond (X represents a halogen atom) in the same molecule . . .
and it is per claim 40 “a cyclic halosilane compound” and Elgammal’s product (Si6H12) is, per claim 40, “a cyclic hydrogenated silane compound”. Respecting claims 41 and 42, Elgammal’s product (Si6H12) is “cyclohexasilane”.
The limitations of claim 48 are clearly met.
The limitations of claim 50 are met because Elgammal Example 1 meets the claim 50 limitation of:
Claim 50 . . . wherein the removing step of the reducing agent (R2) and/or the resulting material of the reducing agent (R2) is carried out without the (T1) separating step of the solid and the liquid . . .
Elgammal Example 1 meets the remaining limitations of claim 50 because, per claim 50, Elgammal distills the product (Si6H12) directly from the reaction mixture and thus, per claim 50, Elgammal performs “the (T2) separating step of one liquid and another” is performed on the reaction solution and involves “the (T4) distilling step of the hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX)”.
§ 102(a)(1) Rejection over E. Hengge et al., 16 Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 403 (1977)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 13, 16-18, 25, 39-42, and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by E. Hengge et al., 16 Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 403 (1977).
Hengge teaches that starting from dodecaphenylcyclohexasilane (an elected species) reaction with AlCI3/HCl cleaves the Si-Ph bonds to Si6Cl12. Hengge at page 403, paragraph bridging cols. 1-2. Hengge teaches that Si6Cl12 can be smoothly hydrogenated to unsubstituted cyclohexasilane with pure LiAlH4 in benzene/ether. Hengge at page 403, col. 2.
Hengge teaches the following one-pot experimental procedure:
Procedure
Benzene (200ml) and AlCl3 (1 g, 7.5mmol) are added to Si6Ph12 (4g, 3.6 mmol). HCl is passed into this stirred suspension until a clear solution is obtained. AlCl3 is filtered off, and a freshly prepared 0.5 M ethereal solution of LiAIH4 (100ml) is added to the vigorously stirred filtrate with ice-cooling (1 h). Stirring is continued at room temperature, the ether removed, and the precipitate filtered off; residual benzene is drawn off at 1 torr. At 0.01 torr and 80°C Si6H12 condenses over as a colorless liquid, yield 0.39g (60%).
Hengge at page 403, col. 2. Here, as discussed above, Si6Cl12 is formed in situ followed by LiAlH4 reduction to Si6H12.
Hengge’s working meets each and every limitation of claim 1, where Si6Cl12 (i.e., dodecachlorocyclohexasilane) meets the claim 1 limitation of:
Claim 1 . . . a polyhalosilane compound (C1) comprising a Si-Si bond and a Si-X bond (X represents a halogen atom) in the same molecule . . .
and Hengge’s LiAlH4 meets the claim 1 limitation of “reducing agent (R2)” and the distillation meets the claim 1 alternative of “(T4) distilling step of the hydrogenated polysilane compound (CX)”. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are therefore clearly anticipated.
Claims 9-12 are anticipated because Hengge’s reducing step (P1) is carried out in an ether/benzene mixture.
Respecting claim 13, Hengge employs a total volume of ether/benzene of about 300 ml (0.3 L) of ether per 3.6 mmol (0.0036 mol) of halosilane Si6Cl12, which falls within the claim 13 range. Claim 13 is therefore anticipated.
The further limitations of claim 16 are clearly met by Hengge.
The limitations of claim 17 and 18 are met because Hengge’s reduction of Si6Cl12 (i.e., dodecachlorocyclohexasilane) of with lithium aluminum hydride forms an aluminum complex as a byproduct. This is evidenced by V. Ponomarev et al., 21 Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Division of chemical science, 1328-1331 (1972). Ponomarev teaches that the reduction of chlorosilanes by lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) occurs with formation of the aluminum complex and/or aluminum chloride complex as follows.
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ponomarev at page 1330. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The further limitations of claim 25 are clearly met because Hengge teaches a filtration.
The limitations of claims 39-42 and 46 are clearly met. Respecting claim 39-40, Hengge’s Si6Cl12 (i.e., dodecachlorocyclohexasilane) meets the structural limitations of claim 1 (C1).
Claim 1 . . . a polyhalosilane compound (C1) comprising a Si-Si bond and a Si-X bond (X represents a halogen atom) in the same molecule . . .
and it is per claim 40 “a cyclic halosilane compound” and Hengge’s product (Si6H12) is, per claim 40, “a cyclic hydrogenated silane compound”. Respecting claims 41 and 42, Hengge’s product (Si6H12) is “cyclohexasilane”. Respecting claim 46, Hengge teaches reduction of Si6Cl12 (i.e., dodecachlorocyclohexasilane) to Si6H12.
The limitations of claim 47 and 48 are clearly met.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X. Lu et al., 27 Chemistry of Materials, 6053-6058 (2015) (“Lu”) in view of A. Elangovan et al., US 8,975,428 (2015) (“Elangovan”).
Lu discloses synthesis of cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) as follows:
[(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] (116.95 g, 91.2 mmol) was added to a jacketed reaction vessel and charged with diethyl ether (450 mL). The mixture was thoroughly stirred with an overhead mixer and cooled to 10 °C. LiAlH4 (455.8 mmol, 442.5 mL) as a 1.03 M solution in diethyl ether was slowly added to the reaction via cannula. The reaction mixture was maintained at 20 °C and stirred for 16 h.
Solids were removed by filtration and washed with diethyl ether (200 mL). The filtrate was concentrated under vacuum and the crude product was extracted with pentane (100 mL). The pentane extract was washed at room temperature with 9N H2SO4 (3 × 50 mL) by dropwise addition and was accompanied by vigorous gas evolution. The organic layer was dried over Na2SO4, filtered, and fractionally distilled under reduced pressure to give cyclohexasilane (14.0 g, 77.5 mmol, 85%, >99% pure by 1H NMR).
Lu at pages 6053-6054 (emphasis added).
Lu’s above process is summarized by the Examiner as follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lu at pages 6053-6054. As discussed above, Lu meets each and every limitation of claim 1 under § 102.
Differences between claim 14 and Lu
As discussed above, Lu meets each and every limitation of claim 1 under § 102. Lu teaches that in the reduction step, 0.0912 mol of halosilane [(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] is employed in 0.8925 liters for a molar concentration of 0.102 mol/L, which does not meet the claim 14 limitation of “wherein a molar concentration of the halosilane raw material (CO) in the reducing step (P1) is 0.150 mol/L or higher”. Thus, the difference is one of reactant concentration.
A. Elangovan et al., US 8,975,428 (2015) (“Elangovan”)
Elangovan teaches that cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) can be employed as a liquid precursor for electronics grade silicon materials and devices and that cyclohexasilane is a relatively benign, liquid phase alternative to gaseous SiH4 and/or corrosive trichlorosilane (HSiCl3) in the various processes and technologies adopted in silicon based electronic industries. Elangovan at col. 1, lines 30-36.
Elangovan teaches that the tetradecahalocyclohexasilane dianion, such as a tetradecachlorocyclohexasilane dianion, can be chemically reduced to cyclohexasilane. The reduction reaction can be carried out by contacting the compound containing the tetradecahalocyclohexasilane dianion with a metal hydride reducing agent in an organic solvent at temperatures from -110 to 150° C, where suitable reducing agents include lithium aluminum hydride and diisobutylaluminum hydride. Elangovan at col. 5, lines 18-23.
Obviousness Rationale
Claim 14 is obvious because one of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the reactant concentrations of Lu in view of the utility of Lu’s product cyclohexasilane (Si6H12) as taught by Elangovan. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the concentration difference of Lu 0.102 mol/L is close to the claimed rant of “0.150 mol/L or higher” thus a prima facie case of obviousness is established. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Further, one of ordinary skill is motivated practice “wherein a molar concentration of the halosilane raw material (CO) in the reducing step (Pl) is 0.150 mol/L or higher” for the purpose of optimizing reaction efficiency, where a higher concentration of [(Et2NCH2CH2)2NEt·H2SiCl]2[Si6Cl14] lowers the solvent mass required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 The Restriction of October 2, 2025, contained the typographical error that claim 28 was included in Group (I). Claim 28 is clearly part of Group (V).