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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there’s not serious burden to examine both groups because they recite similar features. This is not found persuasive because Group I is directed to a method and Groups II-IV are directed to an apparatus (electronic computing device, a computer programme product and a non-transitory computer readable medium), thus, they belong to different statutory categories and different consideration and search strategies are required. They also belong to different classifications; thus they require a different field of search (for examiner, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). There will be serious burden to examine both groups. In addition, the restriction is based on PCT Rule 13.1 as this is a national stage application, wherein the restriction the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive because under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features, wherein shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of at least Jarvis (US20050242205) (see Requirement for Restriction/Election issued on 12/18/2025).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite calculating coating depositing area data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface per unit of time by an electronic computing system, using data received and obtaining from sensors and electronic memory.
The limitation of calculating the coating deposition area data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of an electronic computing system, which is a generic computer component. All these steps can be done mentally - receiving the distance data and positional data, obtaining coating model data of the spray cone and coating fluid flow data, and calculating the coating depositing area data based on the received data can be done by thinking and calculating by a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 1).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no practical use of the calculated data in the claims. The claims do not recite any other practical application. The additional elements, electronic computing system to perform the obtaining, receiving and calculating data, sensors for providing distance and position data and memory for providing coating model data, are common and generic elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A, prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integrating of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the electronic computing system obtaining, receiving and calculating data, sensors for providing distance and position data and memory for providing coating model data, amounts to no more than mere instructions to applying the exception using a generic computer component, and the additional elements are common and generic components. There is no discussion in the claims of any new features of these elements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B).
Claims 2-17 do not resolve the issues above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Sakanishi (JP2020084551).
Regarding claim 1, Sakanishi teaches process for electronically tracking of spray coating of concrete (coating fluid) on a physical surface by a spray gun arranged to spray the coating fluid in a spray direction, the method comprising using an electronic computing system (paragraph 0011 and figures 3-5). Sakanishi teaches the processing includes receiving from a distance sensor module comprising at least one distance sensor (using camera images as part of determine distance data of physical distance), distance data indicating a physical distance between the spray gun and the surface (paragraphs 0015-0016). Sakanishi teaches the obtaining the three dimensional coating model data of a spray cone associated with the spray gun (paragraphs 0011 and 0017). Sakanishi teaches the position data providing an indication of the spray gun relative to a first position on the physical surface is received from a positional sensing system (using images, data from camera to determine spraying position) (paragraph 0014-0015). Sakanishi teaches coating deposition area data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface per unit time is calculated (the area covered by the cone/size of the area/circle on the surface is determined by position data, cone model data and distance data; which would give data for coating deposition area (paragraph 0018, figure 7) and with these data, coating thickness per unit of time can be determined (paragraphs 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 7, Sakanishi teaches orientation of the gun and spray direction relative to the physical surface is determined, which would be used as part of the calculation of spray area (paragraphs 0016-0017).
Regarding claim 8, Sakanishi teaches multiple camera (sensors) can be provided and would be used for determining the distance as discussed in claim 1, and these sensors would also determine position and orientation (paragraphs 0015-0016) and where the difference would give difference between the multiple distance sensor values (see paragraph 0015)
Regarding claim 9, Sakanishi teaches data is received from positional sensors (cameras) that would indicate the position of the gun, and would also indicate any rotational position/change, and thus give rotational data that is used for orientation to determinations of rotational movement (paragraphs 0015-0017).
Regarding claim 10, Sakanishi teaches calculating coating depiction area data would also be suggested to determine cone intersection plane coating fluid data based on the distance data and coating model data (see figure 7, paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 11, Sakanishi teaches determining orientation of spray gun and spray direction relative to the physical surface, and calculate coating deposition area data also based on the orientation data (with different affects from different angles/orientation) (figure 7, paragraphs 0015-0018).
Regarding claim 12, Sakanishi teaches the system receives an input related to the selection of the predetermined coating fluid, and the model data for the spray coating is in response to data input (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 13, Sakanishi teaches obtaining coating fluid flow data providing an indication of a mass flow rate of the coating fluid through the spray gun, and adjusting the coating model data based on the coating fluid flow data (paragraph 0017).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakanishi (JP2020084551) as applied to claims 1 and 7-13 above.
Regarding claim 2, as to calculating, based on the distance data, position data, coating depiction area, and time, characteristics of a layer of fluid on the physical surface, this would have been obvious from Sakanishi wherein coating thickness is calculated based on those data (paragraphs 0014, 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 14, Sakanishi teaches to store data over time (paragraph 0017), and Sakanishi teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area, thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Sakanishi is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface, it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the coating deposition area data is expected to be characterized as the coating deposition on an area of the surface per unit of time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations.
Regarding claim 15, Sakanishi teaches the data bases can be used for storing information (paragraph 0017), and use for computer software (paragraph 0011), therein it would have bene obvious that a “network” is used for storing information as to the time stamps, and the data would be provided to be used together.
Regarding claim 16, Sakanishi teaches coating deposition area data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface per unit time is calculated (the area covered by the cone/size of the area/circle on the surface is determined by position data, cone model data and distance data; which would give data for coating deposition area (paragraph 0018, figure 7) and with these data, coating thickness per unit of time can be determined (paragraphs 0017-0018).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakanishi (JP2020084551) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-16 and further in view of Jarvis (US20050242205).
Regarding claims 3, Sakanishi teaches all limitations of this claims, except the positional sensing system comprises a firs accelerometer. However, Jarvis teaches a method of spraying coating liquid on a surface with a spray gun (abstract, paragraph 0002, see figure 1 and paragraph 0025) and discloses to determine and calculate the location of applied coating and the thickness using a controlled module 30 (computer system) (paragraphs 0001, 0005-0006, 0010 and 0025). Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). The measurement of the acceleration, direction and speed are expected to the continuous (paragraph 0010), thus, the integration of the first acceleration in time twice over time and the integration of the second acceleration in time twice over time is reasonable expected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to including the accelerometers as suggested by Jarvis in the method of Sakanishi because Jarvis teaches it would allow to determine if the spray gun is moving in a swinging direction and perform calculations if the gun is moving to get clear results of the coating deposition area data.
Regarding claim 4, Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion, and Jarvis teaches the calculation is started (paragraphs 0006 and 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to including the swinging motion calculation as suggested by Jarvis in the method of Sakanishi because Jarvis teaches it would allow to determine if the spray gun is moving in a swinging direction and perform calculations if the gun is moving to get clear results of the coating deposition area data.
Regarding claim 5, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would have intricially includes one of the first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changes sign at least two times during a pre-determined interval.
Regarding claim 6, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would have intricially includes at least one of a first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changes sign at least three times during a pre-determined interval and a first time period between a first sign and a second sign change varies from a second time period between the second sign change and a third sign change by less than a per-determined amount.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakanishi (JP2020084551) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-16 and further in view of Franks (US20170312775).
Regarding claim 17, Sakanishi teaches all limitation of this claim, except the curing data. However, Franks teaches a method of spraying coating a surface by a spray gun (abstract) and discloses to collect curing data to determine the cured thickness of the cured layer of the coating fluid on the surface (abstract, paragraphs 0001-0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the cured thickness based on the curing data as suggested by Franks in the method of Sakanishi, because Franks teaches it can avoid the cured thickness not matching with the desired coating thickness (paragraph 0002).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis (US20050242205).
Regarding claim 1, Jarvis teaches a method of spraying coating liquid on a surface with a spray gun (abstract, paragraph 0002, see figure 1 and paragraph 0025) and discloses to determine and calculate the location of applied coating and the thickness using a controlled module 30 (computer system) (paragraphs 0001, 0005-0006, 0010 and 0025) (method of electronically tracking of spray coating of a coating fluid on a physical surface by a spray gun arranged to spray the coating fluid in a spraying direction by an electronic computing system). Jarvis teaches the position sensor 28 connected to the spray gun 16 determines the position and attitude of the spray gun relative to the workpiece 14 (paragraph 0025, see figure 1), wherein the position sensor 28 further determine the direction, speed and acceleration of the spray gun movement relative to the surface (paragraph 0009) and it’s connected to the controlled module 30 (paragraph 0025), thus, the position sensor 28 (distance sensor module and position sensing system) provides the distance data (physical distance between the spray gun and the surface) and the position data (indication of spray gun relative to a first position on the surface) to the electronic computing system. Jarvis teaches to obtain the shape and configuration of the spray cone emanating from the nozzle (paragraph 0010) (obtaining three-dimensional coating model data of a spray cone associated with the spray gun). It would be obvious to store and obtain the 3d coating model data from an electronic memory since this data is used for calculation in light of the teaching of Jarvis (pargraph 0010). Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness on specific location of the coating being applied (coating deposition data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface) on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0030, 0026-0028).Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness on specific location of the coating being applied (coating deposition data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface) on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0030, 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 2, Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness (characteristics of a layer of coating fluid on the physical surface) on specific location of the coating being applied on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0030, 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 3, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). The measurement of the acceleration, direction and speed are expected to the continuous (paragraph 0010), thus, the integration of the first acceleration in time twice over time and the integration of the second acceleration in time twice over time is reasonable expected.
Regarding claim 4, Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion, and Jarvis teaches the calculation is started (paragraphs 0006 and 0010).
Regarding claim 5, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would have intricially includes one of the first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changes sign at least two times during a pre-determined interval.
Regarding claim 6, Jarvis teaches the sensor (accelerometer) is used to determine the acceleration of the spraying gun movement (paragraph 0009) and the movement involves pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which encompass all three-axis of the spray gun including the two directions that are perpendicular to the spray direction but perpendicular and perpendicular to each other. Jarvis does not explicitly teach more the one accelerometers are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Jarvis teaches to determine if the movement is in pitch, roll and yaw (pargraph 0027) which is considered as swinging motion. The swinging motion would have intricially includes at least one of a first accelerometer and a second accelerometer changes sign at least three times during a pre-determined interval and a first time period between a first sign and a second sign change varies from a second time period between the second sign change and a third sign change by less than a per-determined amount.
Regarding claim 7, Jarvis teaches to determine the direction of the spraying gun movement (orientation) (paragraph 0009) and the calculation is also based on the orientation (paragraph 0006, 0010, 0025, 0027 and 0030).
Regarding claim 8, Jarvis teaches a distance sensor is used (paragraph 0009) but does not explicitly teach more the one sensor are used. However, it is well settled that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided (MPEP 2144.04 VI). Since Jarvis teaches the distance sensors is used to determine the orientation, thus, Jarvis teaches to orientation is decided based on difference between multiple distance sensor values.
Regarding claim 9, Jarvis teaches a sensor is used to determine the direction, traversal speed and acceleration of the spraying gun (paragraphs 0009 and 0030), which are associated with the rotational data/position, and such data are used to determine the orientation of the spray gun.
Regarding claim 10, Jarvis teaches to determine cone intersection plane coating fluid data based on the distance data and the 3d coating data (paragraphs 0026-0027 0030, see figure 2a and 2b), and such data is used to calculate the coating deposition area data (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 11, Jarvis teaches to determine the orientation (data) of the spray gun (paragraph 0009) and the calculation of the coating deposition area data of positional spray coating deposition is also based on the orientation data (paragraphs 0025, 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 12, Jarvis teaches to receive an input related to selection of pre-determine coating fluid and spray cone (paragraph 0010) in response to providing data related to the pre-determined coating fluid to the electronic memory (paragraphs 0025, 0027, 0029-0030). Although Jarvis does not explicitly teach the data is stored in the electronic memory, Jarvis teaches the calculation is done by the computer module (paragraph 0025), thus, the data would be expected to be store in an electronic memory.
Regarding claim 13, Jarvis teaches to obtain a mass flow rate of the coating fluid through the spray gun (paragraph 0010) (obtaining coating fluid flow data providing an indication of a mass flow rate of the coating fluid through the spray gun). Jarvis teaches the thickness of the coating is determined by the shape and configuration of the spray cone and the mass flow rate (paragraphs 0010 and 0030), therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the cone shape of the spray based on the mass flow rate in the process to yield the desired thickness. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. (adjusting the coating model data based on the coating fluid flow data).
Regarding claim 14, Jarvis does not explicitly teach the distance data is provided with second timestamp, the position data is provided with third timestamp, the fluid flow data is provided with a first timestamp and matching the data based on the timestamps. However, Jarvis teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area (paragraphs 0006, 0010 and 0030), thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Jarvis is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface (paragraph 0006), it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the coating deposition area data is expected to be characterized as the coating deposition on an area of the surface per unit of time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations.
Regarding claim 15, Jarvis does not explicitly teach the distance data is provided with second timestamp, the position data is provided with third timestamp, the fluid flow data is provided with a first timestamp and matching the data based on the timestamps. However, Jarvis teaches use all these data (position, distance and mass flow rate) are used to determine the thickness on an area (paragraphs 0006, 0010 and 0030), thus, the time of their timestamps has to be matched in order for these data to be used together. All these components are required for the calculation, and it would not make sense to measure these data in all different time and expect an accurate calculation. Since Jarvis is concerned with the thickness on an area of the surface (paragraph 0006), it would also be obvious that the time was given the consideration as thickness is generated over a period of time, thus, the calculation of the coating deposition area data is expected to be characterized as the coating deposition on an area of the surface per unit of time. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date to match the data over their timestamps for accurate calculations. It would be obvious that the timestamps are from a network source since the calculation is performed by a computer (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 16, Jarvis teaches to calculate the thickness on specific location of the coating being applied (coating deposition data of positional spray coating deposition on an area of the physical surface) on the surface based on the distance data, the position data, the spray cone shape/configuration (3D moating model) (paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0030, 0026-0028).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvis (US20050242205) as applied to claims 1-16 and further in view of Franks (US20170312775).
Regarding claim 17, Jarvis teaches all limitation of this claim, except the curing data. However, Franks teaches a method of spraying coating a surface by a spray gun (abstract) and discloses to collect curing data to determine the cured thickness of the cured layer of the coating fluid on the surface (abstract, paragraphs 0001-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the cured thickness based on the curing data as suggested by Franks in the method of Jarvis, because Franks teaches it can avoid the cured thickness not matching with the desired coating thickness (paragraph 0002).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11867502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17 limitations completely overlap with claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11867502.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights