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 without traverse of species I, claims 1-5, 11--18 in the reply filed on 3/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/25/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/3/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Cross-Reference to related applications paragraph should be updated to include the issued patent number of the parent application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connecting means in claim 11, which is being interpreted to be a tube [PGPub 0111] and means of process liquid communication, means of non-filtered liquid communication, means for retentate liquid in claim 14, means of liquid communication, means for retentate liquid of claim 15, means of process liquid communication and means of non-filtered liquid communication in claim 16 all of which are being interpreted as tubes, hoses, and ports [PGPub 0113] and functional equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pumping element in claim 1 which is being interpreted to be an elastic diaphragm [PG Pub 0162] and functional equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “any position of said elastic non-permeable membrane is measured by a pressure sensor” lacks support in the instant specification. While the specification does disclose a position sensor [0159 of PGPub] and a pressure sensor 82i [0209], there is no disclosure of using the pressure sensor to measure a position of the elastic membrane, nor is it clear how a pressure sensor would measure a position of a membrane. Therefore, the limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 13 and 18 recite elements such as “fluid tight flexible polymer foil container bags” (claim 13) and polymer film and or foil bags (claim 18), neither of which has support in the instant specification. While the specification does recite the system can be bagged and pre-sterilized [0031, 0059, 0064, 0181 of PGPub] there is no disclosure of the bags being fluid tight flexible polymer foil nor polymer film and or foil bags specifically. Therefore these limitations do not comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 13-17 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the surrounding rigid wall" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the liquid chamber" in line 3, “the at least one liquid port” in lines 4-5, “the drive fluid chamber” in line 6 and “the elastic non-permeable membrane” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or independent claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the liquid chamber" in line 3, “the at least one liquid port” in lines 4-5, “the drive fluid chamber” in line 6 and “the elastic non-permeable membrane” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or independent claim 1 from which it depends.
Claim 13 recites the bioprocess Liquid System of claim 1 … and one or more membrane filters assembled with said bioprocess Liquid system of claim 1”. However, claim 1 already recites a second housing comprising at least one permeable membrane filter. It is unclear if claim 13 is referring back to this previously recited second housing membrane filter or if this limitation of claim 13 is meant to claim the second housing membrane filter PLUS one or more additional membrane filters. Additionally, if the claim is to be interpreted as directed towards additional membrane filters it is unclear if such filters would be in the second housing or a separate housing. If applicant is referring to the previously claimed second housing comprising at least one permeable membrane filters, the claim terminology should be maintained throughout AND referenced as “the” or “said” at least one permeable membrane filters.
Claim 14 recites “said at least one electronically controlled liquid pumping device”, “said at least one electronically controlled conveying liquid pumping device”, “said second outlet port”, “said filter device”, “said third permeate outlet port”, and “said exterior facility area” all of which lack antecedent basis in the claim or independent claim 1 from which it depends.
Further regarding claim 14, it is unclear if applicant intended the aforementioned limitations and the additional limitation of: “first inlet port of at least one membrane filter device” to refer to structures previously recited in claim 1 or if these are new, additional and unrelated structures to those already recited in claim 1. If applicant is referring to the previously claimed structures, the claim terminology should be maintained throughout AND referenced as “the” or “said” whereas if they are newly recited structures they should be prefaced by “a” or “an”. Due to the numerous permutations of previously recited structures and newly named structures possible in interpreting the claim the meets and bounds cannot be determined. Claims will be interpreted as best as possible for examination purposes as outlined in the below rejections.
Claim 15 recites “said membrane filter device” “said first port” “at least one electronically controlled liquid pumping device liquid port” “said at least one PLC controlled liquid pumping device” “said second retentate port of said membrane filter device” “said filter device” “said third permeate outlet port” all of which lack antecedent basis in the claim or independent claim 1 from which it depends.
Further regarding claim 15, it is unclear if applicant intended the aforementioned limitations and the additional limitation of: “at least one membrane filter device second port” and “at least one membrane filter device” to refer to structures previously recited in claim 1 or if these are new, additional and unrelated structures to those already recited in claim 1. If applicant is referring to the previously claimed structures, the claim terminology should be maintained throughout AND referenced as “the” or “said” whereas if they are newly recited structures they should be prefaced by “a” or “an”. Due to the numerous permutations of previously recited structures and newly named structures possible in interpreting the claim the meets and bounds cannot be determined. Claims will be interpreted as best as possible for examination purposes as outlined in the below rejections.
Claim 16 recites “the interior” “said at least one electronically controlled liquid pumping device” “said at least one pneumatically controlled conveying liquid pumping device” “said third permeate outlet port” “said filter device” “said exterior facility area” and “said permeable membrane of said filter device” all of which lack antecedent basis in the claim or independent claim 1 from which it depends.
Further regarding claim 16, it is unclear if applicant intended the aforementioned limitations and the additional limitation of: “first inlet of at least one membrane filter deviceto refer to structures previously recited in claim 1 or if these are new, additional and unrelated structures to those already recited in claim 1. If applicant is referring to the previously claimed structures, the claim terminology should be maintained throughout AND referenced as “the” or “said” whereas if they are newly recited structures they should be prefaced by “a” or “an”. Due to the numerous permutations of previously recited structures and newly named structures possible in interpreting the claim the meets and bounds cannot be determined. Claims will be interpreted as best as possible for examination purposes as outlined in the below rejections.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "liquid connections” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or independent claim 1-2 from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11-12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEVITZ (US 6544424) in view of STOBBE (US 2016/0195081).
With respect to claim 1, SHEVITZ discloses a fluid filtration system comprising:
a rigid pump housing (first housing, rigid wall surrounding at least one chamber) of a diaphragm pump (pumping element) for conveying the liquid, the pump formed with a flexible (elastic) non-permeable diaphragm (pumping element) used to move fluid through the system (Column 6, lines 36-Column 7, line 67, Fig 3);
a controller for controlling movement of the diaphragm within the pump (pumping element being controlled) (Col. 8, lines 20-57, Fig. 1);
a filter containing compartment comprising a filter housing (second housing) with a replaceable screen or hollow fiber filter element cartridge (permeable membrane filter having non-filtered inlet side and filtered exit side), wherein liquid is exchanged between the pump (first housing) and the filter (Column 6, lines 36-Column 7, line 67; Column 9, lines 5-10, Fig 1, 3), the filter
having an interior volume with an entrance end (at least one first housing port being non-filtered entrance), an exit end (second housing port for non-filtered liquid retentate), and an opening for fluid harvest port (third housing port for liquid permeate) which are in fluid communication (Fig 1, 3).
SHEVITZ discloses a microprocessor for control of valves to control the drive fluid and therefore volume of the pump (functionality of pumping element is controlled) and that control of the diaphragm position can be controlled by sensors (Fig 1, Col. 7, lines 49-Col. 8, line 57) but does not explicitly disclose the controller is a PLC, nor that the functionality of the pumping element is controlled by the PLC adapted for real time control.
However, STOBBE discloses a diaphragm pump system comprising a pump housing (element for conveying liquid with rigid wall) (0039) which is made of rigid materials, and the pump control device can be a PLC (0116, 0119-128), the diaphragm pump has a displacement sensor for detecting displacement or position of the diaphragm and control circuitry including microprocessor, connected to the displacement sensor for determining the displacement or position of the diaphragm in real time (0172, 0161) and adapted for supplying the control signals to the gas pressure means (0042-45) to adjust the actual membrane position (0163, 0168) (functionality of said pumping element is controlled by a PLC adapted for real time control of the pumping element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify SHEVITZ to include the microprocessor being a PLC adapted for real time control of the pumping element as taught by STOBBE because the PLC provides input signals to control the pump membrane, and allows the control device to be used for easy digital control over the performance of the system (0135) and the position sensor allows for built in measures to track the actual volume being pumped which overcomes the disadvantages of previously available diaphragm pumps (0006, 0161).
With respect to claim 2-3, SHEVITZ discloses a process vessel (liquid tight housing container) which can be made of plastic (wall surrounding interior) with a vessel port in the side wall (one second port for exchange with the second housing), for exchanging liquid with the inlet port of the filter (interior volume communicates with first port of second housing having permeable membrane filter) and wherein the exit port of the filter is adapted for communicating with the pump housing (first housing) (Column 6, lines 24-60, Fig 2A); but does not explicitly disclose an additional port in the surrounding wall adapted for exchange with the first housing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of SHEVITZ to include an additional second port adapted for exchange directly with the first housing in order to create a bypass loop which could be used when handling maintenance or other issues with the system. Further, an additional port merely represents either a duplication of parts already known in the art or a rearrangement of parts without substantially affecting functionality or operation, and therefore is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claim 4-5, SHEVITZ discloses the diaphragm pump housing (first housing) is divided into two interior chambers by an internal diaphragm that is flexible (elastic non permeable membrane located between the first and second chamber) in which each chamber comprises a valve, the top chamber comprising a dome part with a connection flange, the bottom chamber comprising a housing with a connection flange and the diaphragm is fixed inside the housing via a fitting at its circumference between the two housing parts, an appropriate solenoid valve controls the flow of air (drive fluid valve) and sensors may control the position of the diaphragm in the pump (position sensors) or a pressure measuring device can be used to monitor and regulate the position of the diaphragm (pressure sensor) (Column, 7, line 49-Column 8, line 67, Figures 1, 3) but does not positively recite the sensors measure the position in real time with the position controlled by a PLC.
However, STOBBE discloses the diaphragm pump has a displacement sensor for detecting displacement or position of the diaphragm and control circuitry including microprocessor, connected to the displacement sensor for determining the displacement or position of the diaphragm in real time (0172, 0161) and adapted for supplying the control signals to the gas pressure means (drive fluid valve) (0042-45) to adjust the actual membrane position (0163, 0168) (functionality of said pumping element is controlled by a PLC adapted for real time control of the pumping element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify SHEVITZ to include the microprocessor being a PLC adapted for real time control of the pumping element as taught by STOBBE because the PLC provides input signals to control the pump membrane, and allows the control device to be used for easy digital control over the performance of the system (0135) and the position sensor allows for built in measures to track the actual volume being pumped which overcomes the disadvantages of previously available diaphragm pumps (0006, 0161).
With respect to claim 11, SHEVITZ discloses the process vessel (liquid tight container) has a port that is equipped with a joint and valve in a tube (connecting means) for liquid exchange with the at least one filter (second housing) (Fig 2A).
With respect to claim 12, SHEVITZ discloses the microprocessor controls fluid valves in the system (Column, 7, line 49-Column 8, line 67, Figures 1, 3).
With respect to claims 14-16, As stated in the 35USC 112b rejection above, the exact meets and bounds of these claims cannot be determined due to the numerous interpretations possible.
SHEVITZ discloses tubes, valves and ports connecting the components of the system (Fig 1-3). Adding additional ports, connections, or housing/devices would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of SHEVITZ to include duplicate structures in order to create bypass loops, scale up the production or provide backup vessels which could be used when handling maintenance or other failures with the system. Further, an additional ports, connections or housing/devices merely represents either a duplication of parts already known in the art or a rearrangement of parts without substantially affecting functionality or operation, and therefore is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claim 17, SHEVITZ discloses a port in the head plate which allows for integrating of and communication with a sensor for measuring pressure (Figure 3) (adapted for communication with one or more sensors). It is noted that the type of sensor the port is adapted to communicate with is an intended use limitation and does not further limit the structure of the port as the sensor is not a positively recited element of the claimed invention. As SHEVITZ discloses a port with a sensor for a measurement it is considered capable of use with any of the claimed types of sensors.
Claim 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEVITZ (US 6544424) in view of STOBBE (US 2016/0195081) as applied above, and further in view of MALFAIT (US 2011/0214395).
With respect to claim 13, 18 SHEVITZ and STOBBE disclose all the components of the system in claim 2. Additionally, STOBBE discloses the single use device is sterile (0113) and delivered pre-sterilized (0191), but does not explicitly disclose they are sealed in one or more polymer film and or foil bags. However, MALFAIT discloses a film used for the packaging of sterile products in which plastic laminate films are used to pack medical devices (0004-0009, 0027-0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of SHEVITZ and STOBBE to be enclosed and sealed in a polymer film as taught by MALFAIT because devices are usually prepared away from the location of use and therefore to ensure their sterility at the point of use they are sterilized in closed packaging (0002).
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 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12110484 and over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12157878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined claims in this instant application is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See 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); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Although claim 1 in this instant application is not identical to claims 13 of Pat. 12110484 or claim 1 of Pat. 12157878, instant claim 1 is directed to the same subject matter and fall entirely within the scope of the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the attached PTO 892 were all previously cited in the prosecution of the parent application or otherwise represent the state of the art of applicants invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B HENKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5505. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11-7 EST, Alt. Fridays.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/DANIELLE B HENKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights