DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed on 05/26/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-21 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 5, 8 have been cancelled. Claims 13-14 are withdrawn claims. Claim 21 is new claim.
The applicant’s amendment raises new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b), 112(d) and 103 as discussed below.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 15-21 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.
The previous provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on copending application 18/370,486 is changed to nonstatutory double patenting rejection with respect to US Patent No. 12,692,414 B2 because application 18/370,486 now become US Patent No. 12,692,414 B2. Since, the applicants fail to point out the supposed errors in the double patenting rejection, the examiner still maintained the nonstatutory double patenting rejection with respect to US Patent No. 12,692,414 B2.
The applicant’s amendment necessitates new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b), 112(d) and 103 as discussed below.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “poly alcohol (PVA)” in line 3 of claim 21 appears to be a typo for “polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4, 9-11, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,692,414 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the current application is a combination of claims in US 12,692,414 B1. Specifically, claim 1 of the current application is the combination of claims 9 and 13 of US 12,692,414 B2.
The following table will match the claims of current application vs. US 12,692,414 B2
18/684,991 Claims US 12,692,414 B2 Claims
1 9 and 13
2 12
4 8
9 14
10 15
11 2
15 8
16 9
19 13
20 2
8. Claims 3, 6-7, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8-9, 12-15 of US Patent No. 12,692,414 B2 in view of Kamimura (WO 2019/181,399 A1) English translation is provided via Kamimura (US 2020/0354609 A1). Note: All paragraph numbers cited below are based on US 2020/0354609 A1.
As to claim 3, US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claims 1 and 12 fail to disclose a pH is 2 or more and 4 or less. However, US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claim 12 clearly discloses the pH is 6 or less. Kamimura discloses a pH between 2-6, preferably 2 to 5, including example of pH = 3 or 4 (abstract, paragraph 0138, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 in view of Kamimura by having a pH between 2 to 4 because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claims 6 and 17, US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claim 1 fails to disclose the composition comprises a defect reducing agent. As to claims 6 and 17, Kamimura discloses the composition further comprises a defect reducing agent to inhibit generation of defect (paragraph 0041, 0055, 0059). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claim 1 in view of Kamimura by using defect reducing agent because it will enhance the polishing process by inhibiting generation of defect (See paragraph 0041).
As to claims 7 and 18, US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claim 1 fails to disclose the abrasive have a secondary particle diameter of 20 nm or more and 80 nm or less. However, US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 claim 15 clearly disclose to use colloidal silica. As to claims 7 and 18, Kamimura discloses the average primary particle size is between 15 nm to 100 nm, preferably 20 nm or more (See paragraph 0045). Kamimura further discloses degree of association is between 1 to 3, more preferably 1.5 to 2.5 (paragraph 0052), wherein
degree of association = average secondary particle size/average primary particle size (See paragraph 0053).
Base on the formula disclosed by Kamimura, any person can calculate the average secondary particle size using the following formula as shown below which is derived from Kamimura’s formula:
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
When the degree of association = 1 and average primary particle size = 20 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
= 1 * 20 = 20 nm
When the degree of association = 1.5 and average primary particle size = 20 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
= 1.5 * 20 = 30 nm
When the degree of association = 2.5 and average primary particle size = 20 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
= 2.5 * 20 = 50 nm
When the degree of association = 3 and average primary particle size = 20 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
= 3 * 20 = 60 nm
When the degree of association = 2.5 and average primary particle size = 15 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association * average primary particle size.
= 2.5 * 15 = 37.5 nm
When the degree of association = 3 and average primary particle size = 15 nm, then
Average secondary particle size = degree of association *average primary particle size.
= 3 * 15 = 45 nm
Therefore, Kamimura implicitly discloses the abrasives have the secondary particles size/diameter of 20 nm, 30 nm, 37.5 nm, 45 nm, 50 nm, or 60 nm (within applicant’s range of 20 nm to 80 nm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No 12,692,414 B2 in view of Kamimura by having a secondary particle diameter of 20 nm or more and 80 nm or less because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 4, 9-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1. In claim 1, applicants recite “wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide” (emphasis added). In claim 4, applicants recite “wherein the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide”. The limitation “amine oxide” in claim 4 is broader than “dimethyl amine oxide” as recited in claim 1. Once the applicants recite wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide” in claim 1, applicants cannot broaden the claim by reciting “wherein the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide” in dependent claim 4.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it depends on canceled claim 8.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it depends on canceled claim 8
Claim 15 indirectly depends on claim 1. In claim 1, applicants recite “wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide” (emphasis added). In claim 15, applicants recites recite “wherein the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide”. The limitation “amine oxide” in claim 15 is broader than “dimethyl amine oxide” as recited in claim 1. Once the applicants recite wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide” in claim 1, applicants cannot broaden the claim by reciting “wherein the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide” in dependent claim 15.
11. 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
12. Claims 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 16 depends on claim 2, and claim 2 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 indirectly depends on claim 1. In claim 1, the applicants recite “wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide” in claim 16 fails to further limitation the subject matter of claim 1 and/or claim 2.
In claim 19 depends on claim 2, and claim 2 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 indirectly depends on claim 1. In claim 1, the applicants recite “wherein the abrasive contains anion-modified silica”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the abrasive contains anion-modified silica” in claim 19 fails to further limitation the subject matter of claim 1 and/or claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato (US 2017/0081552), herein after refer as Yamato (‘552) in view of Tsuchiya (WO 2019/049610 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Yamato (‘552) discloses a polishing comprising:
abrasive having a zeta potential of -10 mV or less or -15 mV or less (paragraph 0041, within applicant’s range of “-5 mV or less”);
a cationic surfactant (paragraph 0088, 0090)
wherein the cationic surfactant contains
As to claim 1, Yamato (‘552) fails to disclose the wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide. However, Yamato (‘552) clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises alkyl amine salt or amphoteric surfactant comprises alkylamine oxide (paragraph 0090-0091; Note: Amphoteric surfactant comprises both cationic ion anionic ion. Therefore, amphoteric surfactant read on cationic surfactant; See evidence reference Sanyo Chemical, “Introduction of Amphoteric Surfactant” via https://sanyo-chemical-solutions.com/technology/2024/08/102502/ ).
Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation dimethyl amine oxide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamato (‘552) in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Yamato (‘552) discloses a pH is 6 or lower (abstract, paragraph 0018-0019; 0044, 0072; within applicant’s range of “7 or less).
As to claim 3, Yamato (‘552) discloses the pH is 4 or lower (paragraph 0072, read on applicant’s range of 2 or more and 4 or less).
As to claim 4, Yamato (‘552) discloses the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide (See paragraph 0091; Note: alkyl amine oxide in Yamato (‘552) read on applicant’s limitation “amine oxide”).
As to claim 6, Yamato (‘552) discloses the composition a defect reducing agent (i.e. reduce scratches, paragraph 0049, 0054, 0057, 0096; e.g. polyvinyl alcohol or polyacrylic acid; or polystyrene sulfonic acid).
As to claim 7, Yamato (‘552) discloses the abrasive have a secondary particle diameter of 80 nm or less (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 9, Yamato (‘552) discloses the silica is silica having surface on which the organic acid is immobilized (See paragraph 0037-0041, 0058).
As to claim 10, Yamato (‘552) discloses the silica is colloidal silica (See paragraph 0035-0038; 0058).
As to claim 11, Yamato (‘552) discloses the polishing composition is used in application of polishing an object to be polished containing a silicon nitride film (See Table 1, paragraph 0129).
As to claim 15, Yamato (‘552) discloses the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide (See paragraph 0091).
As to claim 16, Yamato (‘552) fails to disclose the wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide. However, Yamato (‘552) clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises alkyl amine salt or amphoteric surfactant comprises alkylamine oxide (paragraph 0090-0091; Note: Amphoteric surfactant comprises both cationic ion anionic ion. Therefore, amphoteric surfactant read on cationic surfactant; See evidence reference Sanyo Chemical, “Introduction of Amphoteric Surfactant” via https://sanyo-chemical-solutions.com/technology/2024/08/102502/ ).
Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation dimethyl amine oxide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamato (‘552) in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 17, Yamato (‘552) discloses the composition a defect reducing agent (agent to reduce scratch, e.g. polyvinyl alcohol or polyacrylic acid; or polystyrene sulfonic acid; See paragraph 0049, 0054, 0057; 0096).
As to claim 18, Yamato (‘552) discloses the abrasive have a secondary particle diameter of 80 nm or less (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 19, Yamato (‘552) discloses the abrasive contains anion-modified silica (paragraph 0035-0041; silica particle modified with sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid).
As to claim 20, Yamato (‘552) discloses the polishing composition is used in application of polishing an object to be polished containing a silicon nitride film (See Table 1, paragraph 0129).
As to claim 21, Yamato (‘552) discloses the polishing composition further contains a defect reducing agent including at least one selected from poly alcohol (PVA), polyacrylic acid, polystyrene sulfonic acid (See paragraph 0096).
17. Claim 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2021/095412 A1), English transition via Yamada et al. (US 2022/0389280 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (WO 2019/049610 A1).
Note:
Note: All paragraphs number cited below in Yamada reference are based on Yamada et al. (US 2022/0389280 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamada discloses a polishing comprising:
abrasive having a zeta potential of -10 mV or less (paragraph 0036, within applicant’s range of “-5 mV or less”);
a cationic surfactant (paragraph 0058-0059)
wherein the cationic surfactant contains -M+; Note: COO- is an anion).
As to claim 1, Yamada fails to disclose the wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide. However, Yamada clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises aliphatic alkyl amine salt (paragraph 0059). Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation dimethyl amine oxide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Yamada discloses a pH is 2 or more and 5 or less; more preferably 2 or more and 4 or less (paragraph 0072-0073, within applicant’s range of “7 or less).
As to claim 3, Yamada discloses a pH is 2 or more and 4 or less (paragraph 0072-0073).
As to claim 4, Yamada fails to disclose the wherein the cationic surfactant contains amine oxide. However, Yamada clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises aliphatic alkyl amine salt (paragraph 0059). Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation “amine oxide”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 6, Yamada discloses the composition comprises a defect reducing agent (i.e. polyacrylic acid; poly vinyl alcohol; See paragraph 0063; 0167; Table 1 Example 9).
As to claim 7, Yamada discloses the abrasive have a secondary particle diameter of 30 nm or more (lower limit value); and 70 nm or less (upper limit value) (See paragraph 0035; within applicant’s range of 20 nm or more and 80 nm or less).
As to claim 9, Yamada discloses the silica is silica having surface on which the organic acid is immobilized (See paragraph 0031, the functional group in general formula (1) is fixed on the surface thereof of silica via covalent bond).
As to claim 10, Yamada discloses the silica is colloidal silica (See paragraph 0033, 0103).
As to claim 11, Yamada discloses the polishing composition is used in application of polishing an object to be polished containing a silicon nitride film (See paragraph 0077).
As to claim 15, Yamada fails to disclose the cationic surfactant contain amine oxide. However, Yamada clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises aliphatic alkyl amine salt (paragraph 0059). Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation “amine oxide”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 16, Yamada fails to disclose the wherein the cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide. However, Yamada clearly discloses the cationic surfactant comprises aliphatic alkyl amine salt (paragraph 0059). Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition comprises cationic surfactant includes alkylamine salts, or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (paragraph 0060, read on applicant’s limitation dimethyl amine oxide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tsuchiya by using cationic surfactant contains dimethyl amine oxide because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 17, Yamada discloses the composition a defect reducing agent (i.e. polyvinyl alcohol; or polyacrylic acid; See paragraph 0063, 0168, Table 1 Example 9).
As to claim 18, Yamada discloses the abrasive have a secondary particle diameter of 30 nm or more (lower limit value); and 70 nm or less (upper limit value) (See paragraph 0035; within applicant’s range of 20 nm or more and 80 nm or less).
As to claim 19, Yamada discloses the abrasive contains anion-modified silica (paragraph 0026-0034).
As to claim 20, Yamada discloses the polishing composition is used in application of polishing an object to be polished containing a silicon nitride film (See paragraph 0077).
As to claim 21, Yamada discloses the polishing composition further contains a defect reducing agent including at least one selected from poly alcohol (PVA), polyacrylic acid (see paragraph 0063, 0168, Table 1 example 9).
Conclusion
18. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights