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 .
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/16/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 18-20, 28-42, 47, 48, and 50 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 21-27, 43-46, and 49 are currently pending.
Claim 22 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and/or species.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 21, 23-27, 43-46, and 49 are under examination.
In view of the amendments and remarks filed on 6/16/2026, the following rejections remain.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner in its entirety.
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, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49 stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,845,805 (Pat ‘805, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,608,383 (Pat ‘383, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,535,679 (Pat ‘679, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,548,952 (Pat ‘952, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (Blood (2016) 128 (22): 1836. doi.org/10.1182/blood.V128.22.1836.1836, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by Pat ‘805, Pat ‘383, Pat ‘679, and Pat ‘952, each in view of Bacac et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing.
Applicant argues that each of the references do not claim methods of treating CLL with epcoritamab. For example, Pat ‘805 and ‘952 claim methods of treating DLBCL comprising administration of epcoritamab, while Pat ‘383 and ‘679 claim treating FL comprising administration of epcoritamab. Applicant further argues that Bacac does not teach, suggest, or provide motivation to use these claimed methods to treat CLL, as this reference teaches use of a different CD3/CD20 bispecific antibody to treat CLL.
This has been found to be not convincing. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combination of references. See MPEP 2145. Contrary to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, note that One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See MPEP 2145 IV.
It is noted that in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teaching of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would be reasonably be expected to draw therefrom In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See MPEP 2144.01.
Furthermore, specific statements in the references themselves which would spell out the claimed invention are not necessary to show obviousness, since questions of obviousness involves not only what references expressly teach, but what they would collectively suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See CTS Corp. v. Electro Materials Corp. of America 202 USPQ 22 (DC SNY ); and In re Burckel 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA). In re Burckel is cited in MPEP 716.02.
Here, given the teachings of Pat ‘805, Pat ‘383, Pat ‘679, and Pat ‘952, each of which a method of treating cancers such as DLBCL or FLL comprising administration of epcoritamab, and Bacac et al. teaching the feasibility of using bispecific CD3/CD20 T-cell engagers to treat CLL, the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have had a reasonable expectation of success of using the methods of treatment with epcoritamab to treat CLL.
Applicant further argues that the claimed dosage regimen cannot be considered routine optimization by one with ordinary skill in the art because (Remarks filed 6/16/2026 pg. 11-12): “…the Office has not provided any support that the prior art suggested the desirability or need for the presently claimed dosage regimen (e.g., epcoritamab in 28-day cycles to treat CLL), nor has the Office demonstrated, without the benefit of hindsight, that the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the cited references to achieve the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success…”
This has been found to be not convincing. As discussed supra, the combination of the references arrives at the claimed method of treating CLL comprising administration of epcoritamab, and each of the cited patent references teach the instant claimed dosages and administration intervals. As discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026 and supra, one would have been motivated to try these already known dosage regimens to the treatment of CLL to optimize the treatment regimen to affect the outcome of treating CLL.
Therefore the invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by Pat ‘805, Pat ‘383, Pat ‘679, and Pat ‘952, each in view of Bacac et al., especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 21 and 23-27 stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,845,805 (Pat ‘805, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,608,383 (Pat ‘383, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,535,679 (Pat ‘679, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,548,952 (Pat ‘952, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (supra), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49, and further in view of Maddocks et al. (JAMA Oncol. 2015 Apr;1(1):80-7. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.218. PMID: 26182309, in Office Action mailed 3/16/2026).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by Pat ‘805, Pat ‘383, Pat ‘679, and Pat ‘952, each in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing.
Applicant argues that Maddocks et al. does not teach applicability of combination treatment to treat DLBCL or FLL, and does not teach that DLBCL or FLL therapies can be adapted to CLL. However, this has not been found convincing for the reasons discussed supra, namely because the reference in combination with Bacac et al. address this motivation to adapt the therapies to treat CLL in the previous NSDP rejection.
Therefore the invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by Pat ‘805, Pat ‘383, Pat ‘679, and Pat ‘952, each in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al., especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-3, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33, 34-38, 45-50, and 64-67 of copending Application 18/025,203 (App ‘203, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-8, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33-38, 46-50, and 64-67 of copending Application 18/500,799 (App ‘799, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 32-34, and 48-51 of copending Application No. 18/025,204 (App ‘204, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 30-33, and 48 of copending Application No. 18/025,205 (App ‘205, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37-40, 47-53, and 67-70 of copending Application No. 18/025,206 (App ‘206, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29-36, 52, and 53 of copending Application No. 18/025,208 (App ‘208, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (supra). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘203, App ‘799, App ‘204, App ‘205, App ‘206, and App ‘208 each in view of Bacac et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing.
Applicant argues that each of the references do not claim methods of treating CLL with epcoritamab. For example, App ‘203, App ‘206, and App ‘208 claim methods of treating DLBCL comprising administration of epcoritamab, while App ‘204 and ‘205 claim treating FL comprising administration of epcoritamab. Applicant further argues that Bacac does not teach, suggest, or provide motivation to use these claimed methods to treat CLL, as this reference teaches use of a different CD3/CD20 bispecific antibody to treat CLL. Applicant further argues that the claimed dosage regimen cannot be considered routine optimization by one with ordinary skill in the art (Remarks pg. 11-12). However, for the reasons discussed supra, these arguments have found to be not convincing.
Therefore the invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘203, App ‘799, App ‘204, App ‘205, App ‘206, and App ‘208, each in view of Bacac et al., especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 21 and 23-27 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-3, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33, 34-38, 45-50, and 64-67 of copending Application 18/025,203 (App ‘203, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-8, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 33-38, 46-50, and 64-67 of copending Application 18/500,799 (App ‘799, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 32-34, and 48-51 of copending Application No. 18/025,204 (App ‘204, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 30-33, and 48 of copending Application No. 18/025,205 (App ‘205, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37-40, 47-53, and 67-70 of copending Application No. 18/025,206 (App ‘206, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29-36, 52, and 53 of copending Application No. 18/025,208 (App ‘208, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (supra), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49, and further in view of Maddocks et al. (supra).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘203, App ‘799, App ‘204, App ‘205, App ‘206, and App ‘208, each in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing.
Applicant argues that Maddocks et al. does not teach applicability of combination treatment to treat DLBCL or FLL, and does not teach that DLBCL or FLL therapies can be adapted to CLL. However, this has not been found convincing for the reasons discussed supra.
Therefore the invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘203, App ‘799, App ‘204, App ‘205, App ‘206, and App ‘208, each in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al., especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, and 16, stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,154 (Pat ‘154, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is anticipated by Pat ‘154 for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49 stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,154 (Pat ‘154, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026) in view of Lugtenburg et al. (Blood (2019) 134 (Supplement_1): 758, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by anticipated by Pat ‘154 in view of Lugtenburg et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 23-27, 41, and 42 stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,435,154 (Pat ‘154, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026) in view of Maddocks et al. (supra). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by anticipated by Pat ‘154 in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, and 49, stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,858,995 (Pat ‘995, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is anticipated by Pat ‘995 for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 21, 23-27, and 49 stand as rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,858,995 (Pat ‘995, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026) in view of Maddocks et al. (supra). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by anticipated by Pat ‘995 in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, and 49 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69, 70, 72-89, and 98-108 of copending Application No. 17/923,317 (App ‘317, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is anticipated by App ‘317 for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 21, 23-27, and 49 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 69, 70, 72-89, and 98-108 of copending Application No. 17/923,317 (App ‘317, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026) in view of Maddocks et al. (supra). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by anticipated by App ‘317 in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant has requested the rejection be held in abeyance (Remarks pg. 13), however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 25, 26, 29-31, 33-35, 39-43, and 49 of copending Application No. 18/160,386 (App ‘386, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 25, 29, 34, 46-50, 67, and 68 of copending Application 18/160,391 (App ‘391, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 33-36, 38, 41, 46, and 66 of copending Application 18/833,267 (App ‘267, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-28, 30, 34, 35, 41, 68-70, 74, 78-80, and 82 of copending Application 18/500,673 (App ‘673, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 of copending Application 18/664,772 (App ‘772, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29, 33, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54, 60-63, 67, 72, 73, and 83 of copending Application 18/855,842 (App ‘842, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (supra). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘386, App ‘391, App ‘267, App ‘673, App ‘772, and App ‘842 each in view of Bacac et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing. Applicant argues the rejections be held in abeyance, however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 21 and 23-27 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 25, 26, 29-31, 33-35, 39-43, and 49 of copending Application No. 18/160,386 (App ‘386, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 25, 29, 34, 46-50, 67, and 68 of copending Application 18/160,391 (App ‘391, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 33-36, 38, 41, 46, and 66 of copending Application 18/833,267 (App ‘267, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-28, 30, 34, 35, 41, 68-70, 74, 78-80, and 82 of copending Application 18/500,673 (App ‘673, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 of copending Application 18/664,772 (App ‘772, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29, 33, 39, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54, 60-63, 67, 72, 73, and 83 of copending Application 18/855,842 (App ‘842, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026, supra)
Each in view of Bacac et al. (supra), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 43-46, and 49, and further in view of Maddocks et al. (supra).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘386, App ‘391, App ‘267, App ‘673, App ‘772, and App ‘842 each in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing. Applicant argues the rejections be held in abeyance, however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 16 stand as provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-14, 24, 28-31, 40, and 66 of copending Application 18/833,261 (App ‘261, in Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026) in view of Bacac et al. (supra).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘261 in view of Bacac et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing. Applicant argues the rejections be held in abeyance, however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 5-8, 17, 43-46, and 49 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-14, 24, 28-31, 40, and 66 of copending Application 18/833,261 (supra) in view of Bacac et al., as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of Lugtenburg et al. (supra).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘261 in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Lugtenburg et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing. Applicant argues the rejections be held in abeyance, however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claims 21 and 23-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-14, 24, 28-31, 40, and 66 of copending Application 18/833,261 (supra) in view of Bacac et al., as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of Maddocks et al. (supra).
The invention encompassed by the instant claims is a prima facie obvious variant of the invention claimed by App ‘261 in view of Bacac et al., and further in view of Maddocks et al. for the same reasons discussed in the Office Action mailed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/16/2026, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing. Applicant argues the rejections be held in abeyance, however filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, and therefore the rejection is maintained. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Please note that for any Provisional Non-statutory Double Patenting rejections for co-pending applications that have a later filing date, these rejections will be withdrawn if they are the only rejections remaining.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEC JON PETERS whose telephone number is (703)756-5794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm 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, Misook Yu can be reached at (571) 272-0839. 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.
/ALEC JON PETERS/Examiner, Art Unit 1641
/MISOOK YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1641
Prosecution Insights