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 Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 12-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 are under current examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-11 use the term “about”. The instant application’s specification, pages 24-25, paragraph 069, defines the term “about” as “As used herein, the term "about" modifying, for example, the quantity of a component in a composition, concentration, and ranges thereof, employed in describing the embodiments of the disclosure, refers to variation in the numerical quantity that can occur, for example, through typical measuring and handling procedures used for making compounds, compositions, concentrates or use formulations; through inadvertent error in these procedures; through differences in the manufacture, source, or purity of starting materials or components used to carry out the methods, and like proximate considerations. The term "about" also encompasses amounts that differ due to aging of a formulation with a particular initial concentration or mixture, and amounts that differ due to mixing or processing a formulation with a particular initial concentration or mixture. Where modified by the term "about" the claims appended hereto include equivalents to these quantities.” This definition renders the claims broad. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5, 9-11 will be broadly interpreted.
Maintained Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington).
Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7).
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5].
“[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. Therefore, it would be obvious to rearrange the elements, such as combining two solvents known to be used in plant composition comprising plant growth hormones, of Worthington, as claimed by instant claims 1, 4, and 7.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington) in view of Wang et al. (WO2005/115142A1, published 12/08/2005).
As mentioned above, Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7). Furthermore, Worthington teaches the addition of one or more surfactants (paragraph 72; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 8).
Worthington fails to teach the addition of an antioxidant, preservative, adjuvant, or excipient as in instant claim 6.
Wang teaches a plant growth regulator composition comprising a plant growth regulator is selected from a group consisting of gibberellins, auxins, cytokinins, or combinations thereof (claim 2; according to the claims 1, 4, and 7). Wang further teaches the addition a solvent, specifically propylene glycol (claims 5 and 6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Wang teaches the addition an antioxidant to the composition (claim 7; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Furthermore, Wang teaches the composition to further contain a preservative (page 6, lines 22-26; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Wang also teaches the addition of an adjuvant, specifically a surfactant adjuvant (page 1, lines 9-12; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 8).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a plant growth solution comprising ingredients such as auxin, gibberellic acid, cytokinin, and solvents to include propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol as outlined by Worthington with the ready for improvement known technique of adding an antioxidant, a preservative, an adjuvant, and a surfactant as outlined Wang. Adding the forementioned components to plant growth composition comprising propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol, and an active component as claimed by instant claims 6 and 8 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2005/115142A1, published 12/08/2005) in view of Hayes (US 20160340267A1, published 11/24/2016, hereafter Hayes).
As mentioned above, Wang teaches a plant growth regulator composition comprising a plant growth regulator is selected from a group consisting of gibberellins, auxins, cytokinins, or combinations thereof (claim 2; according to the claim 1). Furthermore, Wang teaches that cytokinins are of extreme importance in regulating plant growth and development, especially cell division (page 2, lines 25-26; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Wang further teaches the addition a solvent, specifically propylene glycol at a concentration of 91-93% (claims 5-6 and 14; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11). Wang further teaches that the composition comprising at least one solvent and the composition comprising at least one additional component such as a cosolvent (page 1, lines 9-11; 1, 5, 7, and 9-11). Wang further teaches the cosolvents to by lactates, such as ethyl lactate and butyl lactate (page 6, lines 22-23; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11). Wang teaches the addition an antioxidant to the composition (claim 7; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Furthermore, Wang teaches the composition to further contain a preservative (page 6, lines 22-26; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 6). Wang also teaches the addition of an adjuvant, specifically a surfactant adjuvant (page 1, lines 9-12; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 8).
Although Wang teaches cosolvents such as lactates, Wang fails to teach the addition of 2-butoxyethanol as claimed by the instant claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9-11. Furthermore, Wang fails to teach the concentrations of propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol as claimed by the instant claims 2-3, and 9-11.
Hayes teaches a liquid composition comprising a fertilizer and other ingredients designed to reduce clumping (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Hayes further teaches the liquid composition to comprise one or more solvents (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Hayes teaches that fertilizers, such as urea and ammonium sulfate, provide nutrients to the soil (paragraph 0003; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Hayes further claims the glycol in the composition is selected from a group consisting of propylene glycol, butoxyethanol, and combinations thereof (claim 13; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11). Furthermore, Hayes teaches a liquid composition to comprise about 75-95% propylene glycol and about 0-10% butoxyethanol (paragraph 0029 and 0075-0077; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11). Hayes teaches the liquid compositions were prepared by mixing dimethylcarbonate, propylene glycol, a pigment, and ethyl lactate or butoxyethanol (paragraph 0196; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11). Additionally, Hayes teaches the alternative composition of 1-10% ethyl lactate and 90-99% propylene glycol (paragraph 0032; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a plant growth composition comprising plant growth regulators such as auxin, gibberellins, cytokinins, or combinations thereof, in addition to a solvents to include propylene glycol and a cosolvent such as ethyl lactate as outlined by Wang with the simple substitution of using 2-butoxyethanol as the cosolvent in the place of ethyl lactate as outlined by Hayes. Simple substitution of one cosolvent for another cosolvent known to be used interchangeably is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a plant growth composition comprising plant growth regulators such as auxin, gibberellins, cytokinins, or combinations thereof, in addition to a solvents to include propylene glycol and a cosolvent such as ethyl lactate as outlined by Wang with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentrations of the solvents as outlined by Hayes. Adjusting the forementioned concentrations of the solvents to include propylene glycol and ethyl lactate/2-butoxyethanol as claimed by instant claims 3, 5-9, and 11 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to optimize the concentrations of Wang and Hayes to the concentrations of the instant claims 2 and 10, as the MPEP 2144.05 states “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Non-Statutory 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, 4, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12408669B2 in view of Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington), as evidenced by Nexight (Nexight Group for the USDA National Organic Program, Propylene Glycol Livestock (March 5th, 2021), hereafter Nexight), and as evidenced by PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. 2-Butoxyethanol, CID=8133, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Butoxyethanol (accessed on Sept. 13, 2019), accessed via Wayback machine, hereafter Pubchem). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As evidenced by Nexight, propylene glycol is used both as a pesticide and an inert ingredient (page 3, line 116).
As evidenced by Pubchem 2-butoxyethanol is also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (Page 1, chemical names). Further evidenced by Pubchem ethylene glycol monobutyl ether is an inert compound used in good agricultural practice (page 31, allowable tolerances).
12408669B2 claims a plant growth composition comprising a mixture of inert compounds, and an active component combination (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). 12408669B2 further claims the active component combination to comprising gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7).
12408669B2 fails to explicitly teach the addition of propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol.
As mentioned above, Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 4 and 7).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a plant growth solution comprising auxin, gibberellic acid, cytokinin, and a mixture of inert compounds as outlined by 12408669B2 with the simple substitution of propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol as outlined by Worthington and evidenced by both Pubchem and Nexight. Simple substitution of a mixture of inert compounds for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8 of copending Application No. 18483035 (reference application) in view of Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
18483035 claims a plant growth composition comprising a solvent composition wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of 2-butoxy ethanol (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Claim 1 of 18483035 further claims the addition of an active component combination formulated to increase the growth of a plant (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 2 of 18483035 claims the active component combination to comprise auxin, gibberellin, and cytokinin (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 4). Lastly, Claim 8 of 18483035 claims the solvent composition concentration to be between about 95-99% of the composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 5).
18483035 fails to explicitly claim propylene glycol.
As mentioned above, Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a plant growth solution comprising auxin, gibberellic acid, cytokinin, and 2-butoxyethanol as outlined by 18483035 with the ready improvement of the known technique of adding the solvent propylene glycol as outlined by Worthington. The addition of the propylene glycol to a plant growth composition comprising 2-butoxyethanol and an active component such as auxin, gibberellin, and cytokinin, would yield predictable results thus making the instant claims 1, 4, and 7 of obviousness. Lastly, the use of the solvent composition at a concentration about 95-99% of the composition as in the instant claim 5 would be obvious to claim as outlined by 18483035. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 11812753B2 in view of Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington).
US11812753B2 claims a plant growth composition comprising a solvent composition consisting of 1-methoxy-2-propanol and 2-buxyoxy ethanol, and an active component combination comprising auxin, gibberellin, and cytokinin (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7). Lastly, claim 2 of US11812753B2 claims the solvent composition to be at a concentration of about 95-99wt% of the plant growth composition (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 5).
US11812753B2 fails to teach the addition of propylene glycol.
As mentioned above, Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 4 and 7).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a plant growth solution comprising auxin, gibberellin, cytokinin, and 2-butoxyethanol as outlined by US11812753B2 with the ready improvement of the known technique of adding the solvent propylene glycol as outlined by Worthington. The addition of the propylene glycol to a plant growth composition comprising 2-butoxyethanol and an active component such as auxin, gibberellin, and cytokinin, would yield predictable results thus making the instant claims 1, 4, and 7 of obviousness. Lastly, the use of the solvent composition at a concentration about 95-99% of the composition as in the instant claim 5 would be obvious to claim as taught by US11812753B2.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11589589 in view of Worthington (US 5466821A, published 11/14/1995, hereafter Worthington), as evidenced by Nexight (Nexight Group for the USDA National Organic Program, Propylene Glycol Livestock (March 5th, 2021), hereafter Nexight), and as evidenced by PubChem (National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. 2-Butoxyethanol, CID=8133, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2-Butoxyethanol (accessed on Sept. 13, 2019), accessed via Wayback machine, hereafter Pubchem). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As evidenced by Nexight, propylene glycol is used both as a pesticide and an inert ingredient (page 3, line 116).
As evidenced by Pubchem 2-butoxyethanol is also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (Page 1, chemical names). Further evidenced by Pubchem ethylene glycol monobutyl ether is an inert compound used in good agricultural practice (page 31, allowable tolerances).
US11589589 claims a plant growth composition comprising a mixture of inert compounds, and an active component combination comprising auxin, gibberellin, and cytokinin (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7).
US11589589 fails to explicitly claim the addition of propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol.
As mentioned above, Worthington teaches a composition in which an active ingredient is dissolved in solvents, specially wetting, dispersing or emulsifying agents (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington further teaches the solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 7). Worthington teaches the addition of plant growth regulating compounds, specifically the compounds including gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 4 and 7).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a plant growth solution comprising auxin, gibberellic acid, cytokinin, and a mixture of inert compounds as outlined by US11589589 with the simple substitution of propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol as outlined by Worthington and evidenced by both Pubchem and Nexight. Simple substitution of a mixture of inert compounds for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results. Thus, making the claims of the instant claims 1, 4, and 7 of obviousness.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered.
In regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Worthington, Applicant argues that under the broadest interpretation that “plant growth composition” cannot be construed as “any composition that alters plant growth” and that Worthington fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a composition formulated to promote plant growth. Applicant furthers this argument by referencing the instant specification stating that it makes clear that the “plant growth composition” described does not include compositions that inhibit or regulate growth, but are promoting plant growth.
It is first noted that Applicant’s claims are broadly directed towards “A plant growth composition” and not “A promoting plant growth composition” or “Solvent compositions for promoting plant growth” as in the title. Additionally, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches a composition comprising 2 solvents (propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol) and an active compound thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches promoting plant growth. Applicants observation that it also has ‘promotes plant growth' does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable. Further, it is noted that Applicant’s instant claim 1 is a composition comprising 2 things a solvent mixture (propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol) and an active component without any amounts, specifically no amount to effect plant growth. It is further noted that not only does the claim not possess any amounts, but states “is formulated to” which is broad. For example, is “formulated” the process or which the composition is made or is it directed towards the amounts of each component or does formulated mean the composition comprises additional unrecited elements. Further, it is again noted that Worthington teaches a compositions comprising solvents to be propylene glycol and 2-butoxyethanol (paragraph 66) and an active components to include gibberellin, auxin, and cytokinin (paragraph 76 and 81), thus Applicant’s arguments to include the “formulated to promote plant growth” must be referring to additional unrecited steps or elements. Lastly, it is noted that if the amounts of each component, such as the concentration of the solvent in instant claim 5, are critical to ‘plant growth’ then the data provided is only commensurate for those amounts and not any amount as in instant claim 1. In summary, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive by the examiner. Thus, the rejections of record are maintained.
In regards to the Double Patenting rejections, Applicant argues that Worthington is inapplicable to any combination asserted against the pending claims for the reasons above and that all double patenting rejections include Worthington. Further, Applicant argues that none of the claims are considered otherwise allowable and that Applicant request reconsideration of the claims when the claims are found allowable.
In regards to Applicant’s argument against Worthington, it is first noted that Worthington is a secondary reference cited to render the deficiencies of the each copending application or patent. Further, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, it is noted that Applicant has not provided reasoning as to why the rejections against the copending applications or the patents themselves should be withdrawn. Further, it is noted that Applicant has also provided no reasoning as to why the applications or patents should not be combined with Worthington.
In regards to Applicants request for reconsideration when the claims are found allowable, it is noted that a request to reconsider upon allowance is an improper response to a double patenting rejection.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. The rejections are updated for copending amendments/publishing and maintained.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1611