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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, ethylene, propylene, branching index of 0.833, complex 6, N,N-dimethylanilinium tetrakis(pentafluorophenyl)borate in the reply filed on 1/12/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner because it is unclear how it would be an undue burden to search for a range of particular species. This is not found persuasive because there are a large number of possible catalysts embraced by the structure of formula I of the claims. One catalyst, or a group of similar catalyst, do not necessarily meet each and every claim thus burdening the examiner with a forever search. See all of the compounds embraced by the specification. It is unclear to the Examiner why Applicant believes such is not an undue burden. If Applicant has evidence of references that embrace the total breadth of the claims, the Examiner suggests submitting them such in order to prove the breadth of the claims are well known compounds easily searchable compounds.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15, 37-42, 44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/12/26.
Priority
The claims have an effective date of the filing of the provisional application: 2/11/20
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/13/26, 1/13/26, 7/29/22, 7/29/22 have been considered by the examiner. One of the 1/13/26 IDS’s is X’d out because it was a duplicate
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a long space between the last 2 words of the claim (substituted, and, adamantan-1-yl). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8, and its dependents, is 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 8 has the limitation “(two X’s may form a part of a fused ring or a ring system)” in parenthesis. The inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
Claims 35, 36 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 35 and 36 recite the broad recitation “at least 20 mol%”, and the claim also recites “greater than 35 mol%” (in claim 1) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goryunov (US 11203654, the citations below have support of the provisional filed 2/12/19).
The applied reference has a common assignee and some inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Goryunov discloses Formula II of Column 12. The Zr catalyst of Column 22 anticipates complex 27 of claim 23, thus meeting the catalyst formula of claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23. The polymerization using that catalyst may be done in solution polymerization (Column 35 line 21) and may be homogeneous (Column 51 line 53), and may be ethylene homopolymers [e.g. 100 mol% ethylene, meeting the mol% of claim 1] (Column 31 line 8).
Since the catalyst is specifically disclosed and picking one element from a list of options is held to be anticipated, the above disclosure anticipates claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36. Alternatively, though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Since the composition and process limitations are met, the properties of claim 36 are deemed to be inherent or embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the product of the reference and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102." See MPEP 2112(III) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goryunov (US 11254763, the citations below have support of the provisional filed 2/12/19).
The applied reference has a common assignee and some inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Goryunov discloses the bottom formula of Column 21, which is the instantly elected species. This catalyst anticipates complex 6 of claim 23, thus meeting the catalyst formula of claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23. The polymerization using that catalyst may be done in solution polymerization (Column 51 line 39) and may be homogeneous (Column 51 line 39), and may be ethylene homopolymers [e.g. 100 mol% ethylene, meeting the mol% of claim 1] (Column 53 line 58).
Since the catalyst is specifically disclosed and picking one element from a list of options is held to be anticipated, the above disclosure anticipates claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36. Alternatively, though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Since the composition and process limitations are met, the properties of claim 36 are deemed to be inherent or embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the product of the reference and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102." See MPEP 2112(III) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 32, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goryunov (US 11248070, wherein provisional application dated 2/12/19 supports those citations used below to reject the claims).
The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Goryunov discloses Catalyst 6 of Column 24. Though it does not anticipate a species of claim 23, one can see the only difference is a nitrogen substitution in the center ring (that is one of the species of claim 16), and, a different alkyl group on the bottom left/right rings. Herein, the breadth of such is embraced by the A1, A1’ and R2, R2’ of claim 1 (e.g. A1, A1’ can be substituted hydrocarbyls, and R2, R2’ can be a C1-40 alkyl). The overlapping nature of such renders claim 1 prima facie obvious. Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985). The above discussed structure also meets the catalyst formula of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16. The polymerization using that catalyst may be done in solution polymerization (Column 38 line 46) and may be homogeneous (Column 38 line 49), and may be ethylene homopolymers [e.g. 100 mol% ethylene, meeting the mol% of claim 1] (Column 34 line 20) further meeting the polymerization requirements, mol% requirements of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 32, 35-36.
Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Since the composition and process limitations are met, the properties of claim 36 are deemed to be inherent or embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the product of the reference and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 32, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goryunov (US 11214634, wherein provisional application dated 2/12/19 supports those citations used below to reject the claims).
The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Goryunov discloses Zr centered Catalyst of Column 25 line 30. Though it does not anticipate a species of claim 23, one can see the only difference is the 2 top left/right aryl groups (compared to complex 27 of claim 23). Herein, the breadth of such is embraced by the A3-A2 and A3’-A2’ of claim 1 (e.g. A3-A2 and A3’-A2’ is any 2-40 divalent group linking the compound). The overlapping nature of such renders claim 1 prima facie obvious. Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985). The above discussed structure also meets the catalyst formula of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16. The polymerization using that catalyst may be done in solution polymerization (Column 36 line 22) and may be homogeneous (Column 36 line 22), and may be ethylene homopolymers [e.g. 100 mol% ethylene, meeting the mol% of claim 1] (Column 35 line 44) further meeting the polymerization requirements, mol% requirements of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 32, 35-36.
Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Since the composition and process limitations are met, the properties of claim 36 are deemed to be inherent or embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the product of the reference and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Harlan (US 11225539, the citations below have support of the provisional filed 2/12/19).
The applied reference has a common assignee and some inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Harlan discloses Complex 6 of Column 20, which is the instantly elected species. This catalyst anticipates complex 6 of claim 23, thus meeting the catalyst formula of claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23. The polymerization using that catalyst may be done in solution polymerization (Column 50 line 31) and may be homogeneous (Column 50 line 34-35), and may be ethylene homopolymers [e.g. 100 mol% ethylene, meeting the mol% of claim 1] (Column 54 line 31).
Since the catalyst is specifically disclosed and picking one element from a list of options is held to be anticipated, the above disclosure anticipates claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36. Alternatively, though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985).
Since the composition and process limitations are met, the properties of claim 36 are deemed to be inherent or embraced by the reference. If there is any difference between the product of the reference and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 USC 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 USC 103 and for anticipation under 35 USC 102." See MPEP 2112(III) and In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
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.
Claim 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 35, 36 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 32, 42 of copending Application No. 17796522 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 42 of ‘522 meet instant claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 35, 36, claim 32 of ‘522 meets instant claim 32.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 32, 35, 36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 23, 32, 42 of copending Application No. 17796516 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘516 meets instant claim 1, claim 3 of ‘516 meets instant claim 2, claim 23 of ‘516 meets instant claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, claim 32 of ‘516 meets instant claim 32 and claim 42 of ‘516 meets instant claims 35, 36.
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 ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759