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 1-15 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13 drawn to a cleaning composition, classified in C11D; 3/361.
II. Claims 14 and 15 drawn to a cleaning method of a semiconductor substrate, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a materially different process such as in a method of cleaning laundry/textiles.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Susan Perng Pan on November 26, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claims 2, 4, and 8, it is suggested that Applicant delete “includes” insert “comprises”.
With respect to instant claim 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “further includes” and insert “further comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno et al (US2005/0176606).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Konno et al teach a cleaning composition according to the present invention comprises organic polymer particles (A) having a crosslinked structure and a surfactant (B) and is used after chemical mechanical polishing. See para. 10. The surfactant (B) for use in the invention is preferably an anionic surfactant or a nonionic surfactant. Examples of the anionic surfactants alkylbenzenesulfonic acids, such as dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, etc. The surfactants mentioned above can be used singly or as a mixture of two or more kinds. See paras. 49-52. The cleaning composition of the invention may further contain other components, such as an organic acid (C) and a complexing agent (D). See para. 53. Suitable organic acids include citric acid, etc., and mixtures of two or more. Suitable complexing agents include HEDP (1-hydroxyetylidene-1,1’-diphosphonic acid), EDTA, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 54-63. Solvents may be used such as water, etc. See paras. 63-64. The content of the surfactant (B) is in the range of preferably 0.0001 to 5% by mass, more preferably 0.001 to 1% by mass, still more preferably 0.001 to 0.5% by mass. When the cleaning composition of the invention contains an organic acid, the content of the organic acid is preferably not more than 5% by mass, more preferably 0.001 to 1% by mass. When the cleaning composition of the invention contains a complexing agent, the content of the complexing agent is preferably not more than 5% by mass, more preferably 0.001 to 3% by mass, still more preferably 0.01 to 3% by mass. The cleaning composition of the invention has pH of preferably not more than 12, more preferably 2 to 11, still more preferably 2 to 6. See para. 65-69. The weight ranges as taught by Konno et al would clearly suggest the mass ratios as recited by instant claim 1. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of Konno et al would suggest compositions having the same electrical conductivity as recited by independent, instant claim 1 because Konno et al teach compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of Konno et al.
Konno et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Konno et al suggest a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012/154498 in view of WO2020/195343. Note that, Kamimura et al (US 2021/0395645) is a continuation of WO2020/195343 and Kamimura et al has been used and an English language translation of WO2020/195343.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘498 teaches removal compositions and processes for removing at least one metal impurity from a substrate (e.g., a silicon-containing substrate) having same thereon. Advantageously, the compositions remove metal impurities, e.g., iron, from silicon-containing substrates used as semiconductor devices and solar cell devices. See Abstract. The compositions contain about 0.01% to about 50% by weight of at least one chelating agent, about 1% to about 99.9% of water, 0.01 to about 15% of surfactant, etc. See paras. 62-65. Suitable chelating agents include HEDP (1-hydroxyetylidene-1,1’-diphosphonic acid), citric acid, etc. See para. 42. Suitable surfactants include nonionic, anionic, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 43. The composition have a pH value in the range of from about 1 to about 7, more preferably from about 2.5 to about 4.5. See para. 40. A buffer system can be added to achieve and maintain the desired pH, wherein suitable buffering agents include phosphate buffers such as sodium phosphate/disodium phosphate, etc. See paras. 39 and 48. The weight ranges as taught by ‘498 would clearly suggest the mass ratios as recited by instant claim 1.
‘498 does not teach the use of a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths or a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant and a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Kamimura et al (i.e., WO2020/195343) teach a cleaning liquid of the invention (hereinafter also simply called "cleaning liquid") is a cleaning liquid for semiconductor substrates, the cleaning liquid containing a chelating agent. See para. 39. The organic chelating agent is a chelating agent constituted of an organic compound, and examples thereof include a carboxylic acid-based chelating agent having a carboxy group as the coordination group, and a phosphonic acid-based chelating agent having a phosphonic acid group as the coordination group. See para. 51. The cleaning liquid may contain a surfactant. The surfactant is not particularly limited as long as it is a compound having a hydrophilic group and a hydrophobic group (lipophilic group) in the molecule, and examples thereof include an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant, and mixtures thereof. See para. 101 and para. 136. Examples of the sulfonic acid-based surfactant include alkyl sulfonic acid, alkylbenzene sulfonic acid, alkylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, alkyl diphenyl ether disulphonic acid, alkyl methyl taurine, sulfosuccinic acid diester, polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether sulfonic acid, and salts thereof. A monovalent alkyl group that the sulfonic acid based surfactant has is not particularly limited and is preferably an alkyl group having 2 to 24 carbon atoms and more preferably an alkyl group having 6 to 18 carbon atoms. A divalent alkylene group that the polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether sulfonic acid has is not particularly limited and is preferably an ethylene group or a 1,2-propanediyl group. The number of repeats of an oxyalkylene group in the polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether sulfonic acid is preferably 1 to 12 and more preferably 1 to 6. Specific examples of the sulfonic acid-based surfactant include hexanesulfonic acid, octanesulfonic acid, decanesulfonic acid, dodecanesulfonic acid, toluenesulfonic acid, cumenesulfonic acid, octylbenzenesulfonic acid, dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (DBSA), dinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (DNBSA), and lauryl dodecylphenyl ether disulfonic acid (LDPEDSA). See paras. 114-118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic-based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths in the composition taught by ‘498, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamimura et al teach the use of a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths in a similar composition and further, ‘498 teaches the use of a variety of anionic surfactants in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant and a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘498 in view of Kamimura et al (i.e., WO2020/195343) suggest a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant and a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘498 in view of Kamimura et al would suggest compositions having the same electrical conductivity as recited by independent, instant claim 1 because ‘498 in view of Kamimura et al teach compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of ‘498 in view of Kamimura et al.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno et al (US2005/0186606) as applied to claims 1-6 and 10-12 above, and further in view of WO2020/195343. Note that, Kamimura et al (US 2021/0395645) is a continuation of WO2020/195343 and Kamimura et al has been used and an English language translation of WO2020/195343.
Konno et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Konno et al do not teach a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic-based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recite by the instant claims.
Kamimura et al (i.e., WO2020/195343) are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic-based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths in the composition taught by Konno et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamimura et al teach the use of a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths in a similar composition and further, Konno et al teach the use of a variety of alkylbenzene sulfonic acid surfactants in general.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno et al (US2005/0176606); or WO2012/154498 in view of WO2020/195343; as applied to the rejected claims above, and further in view of WO2013/123317. Note that, Kamimura et al (US 2021/0395645) is a continuation of WO2020/195343 and Kamimura et al has been used and an English language translation of WO2020/195343.
Konno et al or ‘498 are relied upon as set forth above. However, Konno et al or ‘498 do not teach the use and amount of phosphate ion in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘343 teaches an amine-free composition and process for cleaning post-chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) residue and contaminants from a microelectronic device having said residue and contaminants thereon. The amine-free composition preferably includes at least one oxidizing agent, at least one complexing agent, at least one basic compound, and water and has a pH in the range from about 2.5 to about 11.5. See Abstract. Additionally, the composition may contain a buffering agent in amounts from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight, wherein buffering agents are added to stabilize the first composition during dilution and manufacturing as well as achieve the appropriate compositional pH, as readily determined by the skilled artisan. Buffering agents contemplated include, but are not limited to, dipotassium phosphate, potassium carbonate, boric acid, lysine, proline, B-alanine, ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), dimethyl glyoxime, dibasic phosphate salts (e.g., (NH)H2P0 4, K2HPO 4), tribasic phosphate salts (e.g., (NH4)3PO 4, K3PO4), mixtures of dibasic and tribasic phosphate salts (e.g., K2HPO 4/K3PO 4), mixures of dibasic and tribasic carbonate salts (e.g., K3CO KHCO 3), hydroxyethylidene diphosphonic acid (HEDP), and combinations thereof. Preferred buffering agents include dibasic phosphate salts (e.g., (NH4)H2PO 4, K₂HPO 4), tribasic phosphate salts (e.g., (NH4)3PO 4. K3PO 4),mixtures of dibasic and tribasic phosphate salts (e.g., K2HPO /K3PO 4), HEDP, and combinations thereof. See paras. 34-41.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a phosphate buffer in an amount, for example of 0.5% or 1% by weight, in the composition taught by Konno et al or ‘498, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘343 teaches the use of a phosphate buffer in an amount, for example of 0.5% or 1% by weight, in a similar composition which stabilizes composition during dilution and manufacturing as well as achieves the appropriate compositional pH and further, ’498 teaches the use of phosphate buffers in general; and such stability and level pH value would be desirable in the composition taught by Konno et al.
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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/492224 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 and 18-20 of 18/492224 encompass the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant and a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because claims 1-15 and 18-20 of 18/18492224 suggest a composition containing citric acid, 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1'-diphosphonic acid, a sulfonic-acid based surfactant and a mixture of alkylbenzene sulfonic based surfactants having alkyl groups of 10, 11, 12, and 13 carbon chain lengths, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. Note that, the Examiner asserts that claims 1-15 and 18-20 of 18/492224 would suggest compositions having the same electrical conductivity as recited by independent, instant claim 1 because claims 1-15 and 18-20 of 18/492224 recite compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of claims 1-15 and 18-20 of 18/492224.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/December 11, 2025