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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/12/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-17 are pending in the current office action. Claims 1, 5 and 6 have been amended by the applicant. Claims 6 and 15 remain withdrawn.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims of Application No. 17/903,104. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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, 2, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-12, 14, and 23 of copending Application No. 17/903,104 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1 and 6 of the instant application, Claims 1 and 7 (respectively), with the additional limitations of claims 9 and 23, of the reference application contain all the of same limitations except that A) the reference application requires “about 30 to about 55% by weight of nitric acid” and the instant application requires “40 to 55% by weight of nitric acid”, B) the reference application requires “about 0.001 to about 10% by weight of an organic amine compound” and the instant application requires “0.001 to 10% by weight of a cationic oligomer”, C) the reference application requires "about 1 to about 8% by weight of acetic acid" and the instant application requires "1 to 20% by weight acetic acid", and D) the instant application includes the limitation "wherein the etching selectivity of Si to the metal film is 100 or more". Regarding the difference A), the reference application claims a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an amount of nitric acid in the composition with the range of the reference application, including an amount that would have fallen within the range of the instant application. Regarding the difference B) although the instant application requires “a cationic oligomer” and the reference application requires “an organic amine compound”, in both cases a list of specific potential options is provided in the claims and the compound “spermine” is present on both lists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected spermine as the "organic amine compound" of the reference application, and this would have then met the limitation regarding "a cationic oligomer" in the instant application. Regarding the difference C) the reference application teaches a range of acetic acid that is fully within the range required by the instant application, and therefore this limitation can be considered anticipated by the reference application. Regarding the difference D) claim 9 of the reference application includes the specific limitation "wherein the etch selectivity of silicon to a metal film is from about 100 to about 1200", this range anticipates the range claimed by the instant application. Therefore, these claims are not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application, Claim 2 of the reference application has the exact same limitation on the claimed “fluorine compound” as the instant application. Both claims are dependent upon their respective Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant application, Claim 6 of the reference application introduces a limitation that is identical except that the "TiN film" required by the instant application is required only to be a "metal film" in the reference application. Claim 10 of the of the reference application requires that the metal film comprise one or more materials, where TiN is one of the materials listed. Based on the combination of limitations of claim 6 and claim 10 of the reference application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected TiN as a material included in the metal film and therefore claim 5 of the instant application is not patentably distinct.
Regarding Claim 7 of the instant application, Claim 8 of the reference application is exactly the same as claim 7 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, claim 10 of the reference application introduces the same limitations.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, claim 11 of the reference application requires that the metal film comprise tungsten and therefore anticipates the limitations of claim 10 in the instant application.
Regarding Claim 12 of the instant application, Claim 12 of the reference application introduces the exact same further limitation upon the composition of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13 of the instant application, Claim 14 introduces the exact same further limitation upon the composition of claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US-20210202264-A1) in view of Sugishima et al. (US-20160083650-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a composition for selective etching of silicon (Paragraph [0004] composition for selective etching of silicon. Note: The preamble "for selectively etching silicon" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]), comprising a mixture of:
a fluorine compound (Paragraph [0026] fluoric acid included);
nitric acid (Paragraph [0024] nitric acid included);
acetic acid ((Paragraph [0028] acetic acid included);
phosphoric acid (Paragraph [0027] phosphoric acid included); and
wherein the composition selectively etches silicon relative to a metal film, wherein the etching selectivity of Si to the metal film is 100 or more (Paragraph [0004] composition for selective etching of silicon. Note: this limitation is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art teaches a composition that meets all the structural limitations of the claimed composition and the composition taught by modified Kim is therefore capable of performing the claimed intended use. Additionally, the courts have held that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [See MPEP 2112]. The composition taught by modified Kim is identical to the composition of Claim 1, as outlined here. The “etch rate of silicon” and the “etch selectivity of silicon to a metal film” are properties of a composition; an identical composition, measured under the same methodology will result in recording the same values for these properties. Therefore, the composition taught by modified Kim will have the same properties as the claimed composition, including the specific claimed properties of “the etching selectivity of Si to the metal film is 100 or more". Alternatively, these limitations could be interpreted as an attempt to further limit the material worked upon by the composition rather than the composition itself. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit how the composition is being used (to selectively etch silicon in the presence of a metal film) but fails to limit the composition itself (the structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.)
Kim fails to teach that the composition includes 0.5 to 10% by weight of a fluorine compound. Kim fails to teach that the composition includes 1 to 20% by weight of acetic acid. Kim fails to teach that the composition includes 5 to 15% by weight of phosphoric acid.
However, Kim teaches that the composition includes 1-15% by weight of fluoric acid (Paragraph [0026]). Kim teaches that the composition includes 10-20% by weight acetic acid (Paragraph [0028]). Kim teaches that the composition includes 5-30% by weight phosphoric acid (Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a fluorine compound at a level within the disclosed range of 1% to 15% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.5 to 10% by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated acetic acid at a level within the disclosed range of 10% to 20% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1 to 20% by weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated phosphoric acid at a level within the disclosed range of 5% to 30% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 5 to 15% by weight. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim teaches that the composition includes nitric acid (Paragraph [0024]) but fails to teach that the composition includes 40 to 55% by weight of nitric acid. Kim teaches that the composition includes a nitrogen compound at a level of 0.1 to 10% by weight (Paragraph [0029]) but fails to teach that the composition includes 0.001 to 10% by weight of a cationic oligomer having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 100,000 and comprising one or more of polyethylene polyamine, polyallylamine, polyvinylamine, amino-poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(-caprolactone), amine poly(ethylene glycol-block- poly(lactide-co-glycolide), poly(ethylene glycol) bis(amine), poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) a-methyl, co-2-hydroxyethylamine terminated, [poly(L-lactide), amine terminated], [poly(N-isopropyl acrylamine), amine terminated], 4-arm-PEG-amine, PEI-bmPEG, PEI-PEG-PEI, methoxy polyoxyethylene glycol amine, poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether amine, spermine, silane-PEG- NH2, trimethylolpropane tris[poly(propylene glycol), amine terminated] ether, 11-azido-3,6,9- trioxaundecan-1-amine
Sugishima teaches a composition for selective etching of silicon (Paragraph [0007-0008] a composition for selective etching of a silicon-containing layer). Sugishima teaches that the composition can include nitric acid from 30 to 70% by mass (Paragraph [0053]). Sugishima teaches that higher amounts of nitric acid increase the dissolution rate of the silicon-containing layer (Paragraph [0053]). Sugishima teaches that the composition includes a nitrogen-containing organic compound (Paragraph [0051]). Sugishima teaches that the nitrogen-containing organic compound can be a polymer, containing repeating units, and can be a cationic surfactant (Paragraphs 0060-0065]). Sugishima teaches that polyvinylamine and polyallylamine are suitable selections for the nitrogen-containing organic compound (Paragraphs [0089-0092]). Sugishima teaches that the molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing organic compound can be 100-100,000 (Paragraph [0113]). Sugishima teaches that the nitrogen-containing organic compounds suppresses dissolution of titanium-containing layers to improve selectivity of the etching composition (Paragraphs [0110-0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Kim by replacing the nitrogen compound taught by Kim with a nitrogen-containing organic compound as taught by Sugishima as outlined above. With this modification the instant limitation that the composition comprise “0.001 to 10% by weight of a cationic oligomer having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 100,000 and comprising one or more of polyethylene polyamine, polyallylamine, polyvinylamine, amino-poly(ethylene glycol)-b-poly(-caprolactone), amine poly(ethylene glycol-block- poly(lactide-co-glycolide), poly(ethylene glycol) bis(amine), poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) a-methyl, co-2-hydroxyethylamine terminated, [poly(L-lactide), amine terminated], [poly(N-isopropyl acrylamine), amine terminated], 4-arm-PEG-amine, PEI-bmPEG, PEI-PEG-PEI, methoxy polyoxyethylene glycol amine, poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether amine, spermine, silane-PEG- NH2, trimethylolpropane tris[poly(propylene glycol), amine terminated] ether, 11-azido-3,6,9- trioxaundecan-1-amine” would have been met, as Sugishima teaches the use of compound that meets the molecular weight limitation and that the compound can be polyvinylamine or polyallylamine, while Kim teaches that the nitrogen-containing compound should be included at a level of 0.1-10% by weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Sugishima teaches that the nitrogen-containing organic compounds taught are useful for improving the selectivity of the composition (Paragraphs [0110-0111]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the simple substitution of one nitrogen-containing compound suitable for use in a silicon etching composition with another such compound. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to have modified the composition of modified Kim as outlined above, by including within the composition nitric acid at a level of 30-70% by mass as taught by Sugishima. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated nitric acid at a level within the disclosed range of 30% to 70% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 40 to 55% by weight. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a higher amount of nitric acid increases the dissolution rate of a silicon-containing layer (Sugishima [0053]). Additionally, this modification can be considered the application of a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Kim teaches a base etching composition, while the teaching of Sugishima regarding the amount of nitric acid within an etching composition could be applied to the base etching composition of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the amount of nitric acid taught by Sugishima to the composition of Kim would have resulted in a predictable result of a composition capable of etching silicon, and would etch silicon at a higher rate than the base etching composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Kim further teaches wherein the fluorine compound comprises one or more of hydrofluoric acid, ammonium bifluoride, sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride, aluminum fluoride, fluoroboric acid, ammonium fluoride, sodium bifluoride, potassium bifluoride, and ammonium tetrafluoroborate (Paragraph [0026] fluoric acid (another name for hydrofluoric acid) is included).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sugishima further teaches wherein the cationic oligomer comprises one or more of polyethyleneimine having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 15,000, polyethylene polyamine having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 3,000, and polyallylamine having a molecular weight of Mw 5,000 to 100,000 (Paragraphs [0089-0092] polyallylamine is a suitable selection for the nitrogen-containing organic compound. Paragraph [0113] the molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing organic compound can be 100-100,000).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Kim further teaches wherein the etch rate of silicon is 3 pm/min or more (Paragraph [0093] Table 1, examples are provided where the etch rate for silicon substrate is higher than 3µm/min and higher 4µm/min). Examiner takes the position that modified Kim, as outlined above in regards to claim 1, can be considered to meet the limitations “wherein the etch rate of silicon is 3 pm/min or more and the etching selectivity of silicon to a TiN film is 100 or more”. These limitations are a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art teaches a composition that meets all the structural limitations of the claimed composition and the composition taught by modified Kim is therefore capable of performing the claimed intended use, including the etch rate and etch selectivity of the composition would exhibit.
Additionally, the courts have held that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [See MPEP 2112]. The composition taught by modified Kim is identical to the composition of Claim 1, as outlined above. The “etch rate of silicon” and the “etch selectivity of silicon to a TiN film” are properties of a composition; an identical composition, measured under the same methodology will result in recording the same values for these properties. Therefore, the composition taught by modified Kim will have the same properties as the claimed composition, including the specific claimed properties of “the etch rate of silicon is 3 pm/min or more” and “the etching selectivity of Si to the TiN film is 100 or more".
Alternatively, these limitations could be interpreted as an attempt to further limit the material worked upon by the composition rather than the composition itself. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit how the composition is being used (to etch silicon at a certain rate, and to selectively etch silicon in the presence of a TiN film) but fails to limit the composition itself (the structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Kim further teaches A semiconductor device manufactured using the composition for selective etching of silicon of claim 1 (Paragraph [0221] a semiconductor substrate product is manufactured using the taught etching liquid).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Kim, as outlined above, teaches that the composition selectively etches silicon (Paragraph [0004] composition for selective etching of silicon). Modified Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the metal film comprises one or more of tungsten (W), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium (Ti), gold (Au), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), and platinum (Pt), as required by claim 9, and wherein the metal film comprises titanium nitride (TiN), tungsten (W), or a combination thereof, as required by claim 10. Examiner takes the position that modified Kim, as outlined above in regards to claim 1, can be considered to meet the limitations “wherein the metal film comprises one or more of tungsten (W), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium (Ti), gold (Au), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), and platinum (Pt)” of claim 9 and “wherein the metal film comprises titanium nitride (TiN), tungsten (W), or a combination thereof” of claim 10. These limitations are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art teaches a composition that meets all the structural limitations of the claimed composition and the composition taught by modified Kim is therefore capable of performing the claimed intended use, including the etch selectivity of the composition would exhibit during specific use cases.
Additionally, the courts have held that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [See MPEP 2112]. The composition taught by modified Kim is identical to the composition of Claim 1, as outlined above. The “etch selectivity” of the composition in relation to specific materials are properties of a composition; an identical composition, measured under the same methodology will result in recording the same values for these properties. Therefore, the composition taught by modified Kim will have the same properties as the claimed composition, including the specific claimed properties of ““wherein the metal film comprises one or more of tungsten (W), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium (Ti), gold (Au), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), and platinum (Pt)” of claim 9 and “wherein the metal film comprises titanium nitride (TiN), tungsten (W), or a combination thereof” of claim 10.
Alternatively, these limitations could be interpreted as an attempt to further limit the material worked upon by the composition rather than the composition itself. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit how the composition is being used (to selectively etch silicon in the presence of specific metal films) but fails to limit the composition itself (the structure being claimed), the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Kim further teaches wherein the fluorine compound comprises hydrofluoric acid (Paragraph [0026] fluoric acid (another name for hydrofluoric acid) is included).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Kim further teaches that the composition further comprises water, as required by claim 13, and wherein the water makes up the balance of the composition, as required by claim 14 (Paragraph [0011] composition can include water as the residual amount).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Sugishima further teaches wherein the cationic oligomer further comprises polyethyleneimine having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 15,000 ((Paragraphs [0089-0090] polyethyleneimine is a suitable selection for the nitrogen-containing organic compound. Paragraph [0113] the molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing organic compound can be 100-100,000. Paragraph [0109] the nitrogen-containing compound can be used in a combination of two or more types).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kim teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as outlined above. Sugishima further teaches wherein the cationic oligomer further comprises polyethyleneimine having a molecular weight of Mw 100 to 15,000 ((Paragraphs [0089-0090] polyethyleneimine is a suitable selection for the nitrogen-containing organic compound. Paragraph [0113] the molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing organic compound can be 100-100,000. Paragraph [0109] the nitrogen-containing compound can be used in a combination of two or more types).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-6, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713