DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received January 7, 2026.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-6, and 8-10, are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-6, and 9-11 are of copending Application No. 17/858,921 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The body of the claims are shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The preambles of each application recite intended use and confers no limitation to the body of the claim; therefore, it carries no patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.02.
PNG
media_image2.png
362
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, each of the highlighted portions of the two claims recited identical ingredients/limitations. And if each were present in a separate storage container an observer would literally be viewing the same compositions. The preamble stipulates how the composition will be used and distributed, either as an edge bead remover or as a developer, but it is literally the same composition which meets the definition for statutory double patenting.
As a supplemental rejection the following non-statutory double patenting rejection is made hereafter.
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 17/858,924 in view of FARID et al (4,743,529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as stated above the ingredients are identical and if the preamble is determined to provide a limitation, FARID et al is cited to disclose that a solvent for the composition can in its simplest form also be a developer to the composition, see FARID et al (4,743,529) col. 14, lines 54-57.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive compositions to use the solvent composition of either application 17/858,921 or 17858,924 as a solvent to remove or dissolve away the coated composition prior to irradiation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YUDELSON et al (3,615,510) discloses a photographic silver halide stabilizing agent consisting essentially of a tropolone boronium halide or tropolone siliconium halide complex which is a heptagonal ring compound, however the prior art fails to disclose the weight percent of the solvent mixture comprising an organic solvent with said heptagonal ring compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights