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 Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-17 are currently examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “closed curved shape” “central axis” “at the first position, the preliminary crucible is tilted so that the open side surface of the preliminary crucible faces upward” and “at the second position, the preliminary crucible is tilted so that the open side surface of the preliminary crucible faces downward” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 120, 147. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…accommodates molten-state silicon to grow… being melted into molten-state silicon … supplies molten-state silicon to the main crucible ...” which should read “… accommodates molten-state silicon to grow… being melted into the molten-state silicon … supplies the molten-state silicon to the main crucible ...”
Claims 15 and 16 recite “…the molten silicon...” which should read “…the molten-state silicon...”
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The word “means” may be substituted by a term that serves as a generic placeholder and still invoke 112(f) paragraph. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for” or a generic placeholder) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 5 contains “an operating module” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “module” coupled with functional language “transfers the solid-state silicon material” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, “an operating module” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 6 contains “the operating module” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “module” coupled with functional language “rotate” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, “the operating module” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim 7 contains “the operating module” limitation which has been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use the non-structural term “module” coupled with functional language “open and close” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. After reviewing the specification, “the operating module” has no description of the corresponding structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “an operating module, which transfers the solid-state silicon material” but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “module”. Claim elements “an operating module, which transfers the solid-state silicon material” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 6 recites “the operating module… rotate the first bucket” but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “module”. Claim elements “the operating module… rotate the first bucket” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Claim 7 recites “the operating module… open and close a lower surface of the first bucket” but there is no corresponding structure in the specification could be identified as the “module”. Claim elements “the operating module… open and close a lower surface of the first bucket” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The recited in claim 6 “…a bottom surface…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “bottom surface” refers to “a bottom surface of the first bucket” or “a bottom surface” of other part/portion of the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 6 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other side". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 20180066377 A1, “Hayashi”), and further in view of Takano et al (US 5462010 A, “Takano”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a continuous ingot growing apparatus comprising a growth chamber 11 (furnace) in which a crucible 21 (main crucible) is positioned (figs 1 and 5-7, abstract, 0011, 0023, 0024), wherein the main crucible (crucible 21) accommodates a melt M (molten-state) silicon to grow a single crystal ingot C (figs 1 and 5-7, abstract, 0023-0027): a supplying mechanism 50 (material supply unit) which supplies a silicon material chunks B (solid-state silicon material) before being melted into molten-state silicon (figs 1, 3-7, abstract, 0028, 0029, 0034-0036); an amount/predetermined amount of the solid-state silicon material (silicon material chunks B) supplied from the material supply unit (mechanism 50) (figs 1, 3-7, 0035, 0037), and a melting mechanism 54 (preliminary melting unit) which melts the predetermined amount of the solid- state silicon material (silicon material chunks B) and supplies molten-state silicon (melt M) to the main crucible (crucible 21) (figs 1, 3-7, 0028, 0029, 0034-0036).
Hayashi teaches the predetermined amount of the solid-state silicon material being supplied as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a quantitative supply unit which measures the amount of the solid-state silicon material. However, Takano teaches a supply apparatus, wherein the supply apparatus comprising a weight sensor (quantitative supply unit) which measures an amount of granular raw material (solid-state silicon material) supplied from a material supply unit and supplies a predetermined amount of the solid-state silicon material (fig 1, col 2 line 31 to col 4 line 65). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hayashi per teachings of Takano in order to sensitively supply the raw material at an adjusting rate (Takano abstract, col 1 line 49 to col 2 line 67).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi/Takano teaches the material supply unit includes a hopper/tank (material storage housing) which stores the solid-state silicon material (Hayashi figs 1, 3-7, 0034, 0035; Takano fig 1, col 3 lines 45 to 60); and a material transfer module (valve/supply controller) which supplies the solid-state silicon material stored in the material storage housing to the quantitative supply unit (Hayashi figs 1, 3-7, 0034, 0035; Takano fig 1, col 2 line 65 to col 4 line 65).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi/Takano teaches the quantitative supply unit as addressed above, and further teaches a container/main hopper/subhopper (first bucket) which accommodates the solid-state silicon material supplied from the material transfer module (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7, 0034, 0035; Takano fig 1, col 4 lines 5-65); a weight detection sensor (weight sensor) provided to measure an amount of the solid-state silicon material accommodated in the first bucket (container/main hopper) (Takano col 4 lines 10-16 and lines 55-66; col 6 lines 5-10 and claim 2); and a quantitative supply housing (subchamber/tank/chamber) having an inner space in which the first bucket is positioned (Hayashi fig 1 and 3-7, 0034-0036; Takano fig 1, col 4 lines 2-65), wherein the solid-state silicon material is blocked from being supplied to the first bucket according to the amount of the solid-state silicon material accommodated in the first bucket (Hayashi fig 1 and 3-7, 0035; Takano fig 1, col 4 lines 45-54, col 5 lines 34-53). Also, it is well established that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi/Takano as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shino Isamu (JP 2020063163 A, machine translation, “Isamu”).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi/Takano teaches a tube (second bucket) which is positioned in the quantitative supply housing and supplies the solid-state silicon material accommodated in the first bucket to the preliminary melting unit (Takano fig 1, col 4 line 35 to col 5 line 33); and a vibration feeder (transfer module) provided in the quantitative supply housing to vibrate (move) the solid silico material toward the preliminary melting unit (Takano fig 1, col 5 line 10-22 and claim 1), but does not explicitly teach the second bucket being moved. However, Isamu teaches an apparatus, wherein a vessel/bucket for receiving granular raw material is movable (0059, 0097, 0098 and claim 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hayashi/Takano per teachings of Isamu in order to provide suitable conditions for efficiently growing crystals with high quality (Isamu abstracta and 0001).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches that each of the first bucket and the second bucket is formed in a container shape which is open upward (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5); the first bucket is positioned above the second bucket (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5); and an operating module, which transfers the solid-state silicon material accommodated in the first bucket to the second bucket, is coupled to the first bucket (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches that the operating module is formed to rotate the first bucket about an axis parallel to a bottom surface (Hayashi figs 1 and 5-7; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches that the operating module is provided to open and close a lower surface of the first bucket (Hayashi figs 1 and 5-7, 0035, 0036; Takano fig 1 col 2 lines 30-60; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches that the preliminary melting unit includes a preliminary crucible which accommodates the solid-state silicon material (Hayashi fig 3; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5); and a preliminary crucible heating module including a body having a heating space in which the preliminary crucible is disposed to be heated and a heater installed in the body to heat the preliminary crucible (Hayashi fig 3, 0034, 0035; Isamu figs 1 and 5, 0100, 0101), wherein the other side of the preliminary crucible heating module is formed to be spatially connected to one side of the quantitative supply housing (Hayashi figs 1 and 5-7). Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches the preliminary crucible heating module, the quantitative supply housing, the second bucket, the transfer module and the heating space as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach the second bucket transferred by the transfer module enters the heating space. However, it is well established that the mere rearrangement of parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi/ Takano/Isamu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Villemin et al (US 20170171919 A1, “Villemin”).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches the preliminary crucible heating module and the quantitative supply housing as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach a blocking pat is opened and closed being installed between the preliminary crucible heating module and the quantitative supply housing. However, Villemin teaches an apparatus, wherein an opening/closing/sliding members are used to control material supply (0044, 0046, 0071, 0073, 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hayashi/Takano/Isamu per teachings of Villemin in order to control a supply of the raw material (Villemin 0044, 0046, 0071, 0073, 0113).
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi/Takano/Isamu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shuji et al (JP 2009263174 A, machine translation, “Shuji”).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu teaches the crucible heating module as addressed above, and further teaches an opening is upward (figs 1 and 5-7; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5), but does not explicitly teach that the opening is formed at a bottom side of crucible heating module in a direction toward the main crucible. However, Shuji teaches a furnace, wherein an opening is formed at a side portion of crucible heating module in a direction toward a main crucible (fig 1, abstract, 0042-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Hayashi/Takano/Isamu per teachings of Shuji in order to provide suitable conditions for continuously producing crystal with improved yield (Shuji abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches the heating module, the heating space, the quantitative supply housing and the preliminary crucible heating module being spatially connected to the quantitative supply housing as addressed above, and further teaches a heating insulating member provided on an open side of the heating space (Shuji 0042-0044, 0053, 0054). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of ‘blocking heat in the heating space from leaking”. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches the preliminary crucible is formed in a container shape which is open upward (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5; Shuji fig 1); and an open side surface is formed at one side of the preliminary crucible facing the main crucible (Shuji fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches the heating space of the body forms a cross section of a closed curved shape (Shuji fig 1); and a central axis of the heating space is formed to be tilted with respect to a bottom surface (Shuji fig 1). It is also well stablished that a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See, e.g., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also MPEP 2144.04(IV) (B).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches the in a state in which the second bucket is positioned in the heating space, and the preliminary crucible is positioned under the second bucket (Hayashi fig 3; Takano fig 1; Isamu figs 1 and 5; Shuji fig 1). Also, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches a preliminary crucible moving module which moves the preliminary crucible in the heating space (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Isamu figs 1 and 5), wherein the preliminary crucible is moved between a first position, at which the solid-state silicon material accommodated in the second bucket is accommodated in the preliminary crucible and then melted by the heater, and a second position, at which the molten silicon is supplied to the main crucible, by the preliminary crucible moving module (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7, 0034-0036; Isamu figs 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches at the first position, the preliminary crucible is tilted so that the open side surface of the preliminary crucible faces upward (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5); at the second position, the preliminary crucible is tilted so that the open side surface of the preliminary crucible faces right/left and the molten silicon in the preliminary crucible flows out toward the main crucible in a state in which the preliminary crucible is positioned at the second position (Hayashi figs 1 and 3-7; Isamu figs 1-3 and 5), but does not explicitly teach that the open side surface of the preliminary crucible faces downward. However, it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts without modifying the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. See, e.g., In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); see also MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). The court has held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus is a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus is significant, as per In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi/Takano/Isamu/Shuji teaches in a state in which one side of the preliminary crucible is rotatably fixed, the other side of the preliminary crucible is vertically moved by the preliminary crucible moving module (Isamu figs 1-3 and 5).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 of U.S. Application No. 18028251 (‘251, NOA issued on 12/22/2025). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1, 3 and 15-17 are merely broader than claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 of ‘251. It is clear that all of the elements of claims 1, 3 and 15-17 are found in claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 of ‘251. Thus, they are not patentably distinct from the claims 1-3, 6 and 8-14 of ‘251.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714