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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 includes the limitation “a nominal thread diameter of the set is set to be greater”. This limitation should be changed to state “a nominal thread diameter of the set screw is set to be greater”
Claim 8 includes the limitation “windings of the protruding streak portions are formed”. This limitation should be changed to state “windings of the protruding streak portion are formed” for consistency
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1 and 15: Although the prior art (JP 62-15784) teaches a plug for an electronic plucked string instrument shown in Fig. 7 to be attached to an end of a cable (43) connecting to a music sound output terminal of the electronic plucked string instrument, the plug comprising: a plug main body (1) shown in Fig. 1 to be formed into such a shape as to engage with a musical instrument side jack forming a music sound output terminal; an attachment sleeve (15) formed into a cylindrical shape as to be open in both ends in an axial direction, is coupled with a rear end side of the plug main body, and allows a leading end portion of the cable to be inserted in the axial direction from a rear end side opening to an inner side; and a set screw (19) screwed into a peripheral wall portion of the attachment sleeve in such a manner that a leading end comes into contact with an outer sheath of the cable while passing through the attachment sleeve in a radial direction, and clamps the cable with respect to a peripheral wall portion of the cable on the basis of a screwing compression force caused by the screwing as shown in Fig. 7, wherein a portion (18) engaging the outer sheath while receiving the screwing compression force of the set screw via the cable is integrally formed on an inner peripheral surface of the attachment sleeve along a peripheral direction of the inner peripheral surface, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the attachment sleeve to be integrated with the rear end side of the plug main body and the portion engaging the outer sheave to be a biting convex portion biting into the outer sheath while receiving the screwing compression force of the set screw. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 2-14 and 16 depend from claims 1 or 15 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
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 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/032,972 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any limitations missing from the claims are shown in the reference application specification and/or drawings, e.g. biting convex portion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 December 11, 2025