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
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE Response filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered and made of record.
This is a Non-Final Action responsive to communications: Applicant’s RCE Response which included an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), an Amendment to the Claims, an eTerminal Disclaimer, a replacement Reissue Declaration, and Remarks.
In light of the Amendment to the Claims, it appears that only claim 20 has been newly amended. Therefore, claims 14-20 are currently pending in the application. Claim 14 is an independent claim.
Applicant indicates that claim 19 has also been newly amended (see: Remarks, p. 5). However, aside from a different claim status identifier, the claim language between prior claim 19 (filed 03/25/2025) and current claim 19 (filed 09/08/2025) appears to be identical.
The objection to claims 19 and 20 (see: Final Action, pp. 3-4) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 251 (see: Final Action, pp. 4-6) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the replacement Reissue Declaration.
The replacement Reissue Declaration is considered proper and has been approved.
Terminal Disclaimer
The eTerminal Disclaimer filed on 09/08/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/455,875 has been reviewed and is accepted. The eTerminal Disclaimer has been recorded.
Thus, the provisional rejection of representative independent claim 14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (see: Final Action, pp. 6-9) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the eTerminal Disclaimer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Consideration by an examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08 or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above (see: MPEP 609).
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,585,492 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20, respectively, of recently filed copending Application No. 19/548,288 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 14-20 of copending Application No. 19/548,288 contain every element of claims 14-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 14-20 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the copending Application claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a copending Application claim if the application claim is anticipated by the copending Application claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The Examiner notes that a complete response to a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is either a reply by Applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance (see: MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)). Additionally, as noted in MPEP 804(I)(B)(1)(b)(ii), if “both the application under examination and the reference application have the same patent term filing date, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection…should be maintained until it is overcome.” In the instant case, reissue application 17/217,621 and copending Application No. 19/548,288 appear to have the same patent term filing date (i.e., 09/05/2013 via common ancestor Application No. 14/019,249).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 would be allowable if the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Non-Final Action was overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In general, regarding independent claim 14, the Examiner agrees with the prior examiner’s reasons for allowance determined during the original prosecution history of the Lamberty ‘492 patent (see: pages 2-4 of the Notice of Allowability in the 16/377,724 application - mailed 10/21/2019). In the instant case, independent claim 14 recites the exact same, albeit reworded, or narrower subject matter found allowable by the previous examiner during prosecution of the 16/377,724 application (e.g., see: MPEP 706.04). The current Examiner has performed updated searches of the claimed subject matter, but has not discovered any prior art significantly better than the art previously made of record.
Additionally, independent claim 14 is also considered allowable because none of the prior art of record specifically teaches the structure and functionally of the defined bridge (e.g., Fig. 2: 208 – shown below) in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims 15-20 are allowable at least because they depend from an allowable base claim.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Please note the relevant cited art listed on the accompanying Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam L Basehoar whose telephone number is (571)272-4121. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights