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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because:
The applicant cited on the TD must be cited exactly as it is cited on the ADS and or filing receipt and also in its entirely. If more space for applicant section is required, please use smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the TD. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08). Please file a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, or file a TD that is signed by the applicant. Please make corrections as suggested above and also resubmit the TD. No new fee required.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,907,930 in view of Howe et al (US 2012/0167432), Fejes (US 5,494,725), or Nold (US 5,153,956).
Regarding claim 1, Betteridge et al (US 10,907,930) discloses the claim limitations except for columns beneath the at least one surface and wherein the at least one pad surface is contoured to a non-planar preselected human anatomical surface.
Howe et al discloses a recoil pad comprising columns (12, Fig. 20) beneath the at least one surface and wherein the at least one pad surface is contoured to a non-planar preselected human anatomical surface (Fig. 15), Fejes discloses pad comprising portion is contoured to a non-planar preselected human anatomical surface (figs. 1-8), and Nold discloses cushioning pad is contoured to a non-planar preselected human anatomical surface (figs. 1-9; col. 1, lines 5-26). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad of Betteridge et al by forming it with a contoured shape supporting non-planar surface of a preselected human anatomical surface as taught by each of Howe et al, Fejes and Nold in order to improve user comfort.
Betteridge et al (US 10,907,930) discloses the limitations of claims 2-5.
As per claim 6, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 3, but do not disclose wherein an outside draft angle of a cylinder wall is greater than five degrees and less than eleven degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylinder walls of Betteridge et al by making the outside draft angle 10° in order to provide adequate flexibility and shock absorption, as optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
As per claim 7, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 6. Betteridge et al further discloses wherein the outside draft angle is ten degrees (The proposed modification would result in a draft angle of 10°).
As per claim 8, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein an inside draft angle of a cylinder wall is greater than two degrees and less than five degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylinder walls of Betteridge et al by making the inside draft angle 4° in order to provide adequate flexibility and shock absorption, as optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
As per claim 9, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 8. Betteridge et al further discloses wherein the inside draft angle is four degrees (The proposed modification would result in a draft angle of 4°).
As per claim 10, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 1. Howe et al further discloses wherein at least a plurality of substructure columns are spaced apart in the pad on a uniform grid (Fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the columns of Betteridge et al by arranging them in a uniform grid as taught by Howe et al in order to evenly distribute support.
As per claim 12, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein at least a plurality of the substructure columns are in honeycomb configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the columns of Betteridge et al by arranging them in an offset honeycomb configuration in order to accommodate a larger number of them for increased stiffness, as such a modification would only require a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
As per claims 13-14, the modified device of Betteridge et al disclose the resilient pad system of claim 1. Howe et al further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the columns is selected from the group of cross-sectional shapes consisting of circular shape, elliptical shape, and multi-sided shape from three sided to twenty sided (9, Fig. 17). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the columns of Betteridge et al by forming them with circular cross-sections as taught by Howe et al in order to evenly distribute weight, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that all claims stand rejected under the doctrine of double patenting as set forth above and the applicant has indicated to file a terminal disclaimer to obviate this rejection.
Regarding Howe et al., the examiner notes that Howe discloses a pad with shock attenuating characteristics that vary along the length of the pad by varying the characteristics of the hollow void in the pad in various ways including diameter, spacing, height along the length of the pad, thickness and number of the voids (note [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, it is clear that the rejections are proper and valid.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm 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, ROBERT SICONOLFI can be reached at 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616