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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 filed on 09/29/2023 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 6-15 in the reply filed on t is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction/election requirement has not provided the reasons why the inventions are distinct and why there is a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the current application is national stage filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and the restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372 which is based on whether there is unity between the two inventions that would require a technical feature and is not based on search burden. As indicated in the restriction/election requirement, it has been established that the technical feature is not special.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn by the examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "distillation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of applying art, the claim is interpreted as being dependent on claim 9.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation tungstate salt, and the claim also recites alkali metal tungstate which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent application publication number US2017/0001932A1 (US’932).
Regarding claim 6, US’932 teaches a process for producing ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol and/or glycerol in a continuous manner from a feed to a reactor, the feed comprising a carbohydrate source in an aqueous liquid, the reactor further being fed with hydrogen gas, the reactor comprising a catalyst system, said catalyst system comprising a tungsten-containing compound and a hydrogenolysis metal selected from the groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of Elements, wherein a liquid product flow out of the reactor comprises glycols and one or more polyols ([0008] and [0025]-[0027]).
It is noted that the limitation “wherein the hydrogen gas being fed to the reactor is provided by a hydrogen production section comprising…” is a product by process claim language as a result of the hydrogen gas product. The product by process limitation is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps for preparing hydrogen gas, but only to the structure implied by the steps, in this case, only to hydrogen gas. See MPEP § 2113:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ( "a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim" ).
Furthermore, because the process steps do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristic to the final hydrogen gas, the process steps are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2113:
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding "the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure," and discussing several cases since Garnero that held "limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture").
Regarding claims 6 and 15, US’932 is silent that the reactor further provides an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane (claim 1) and wherein the amount of off-gas from the reactor has a specific weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in the process of between 0.05 and 0.70 ton/ton MEG (claim 15). However, since the reference teaches every limitation of the claimed process, there is a prima facie case of anticipation for the reactor to further providing an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane and for the amount of off-gas from the reactor to have the claimed weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in US’932. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, the claims appear to be further limiting the product by process claim language of claim 6 and for the reasons noted above, the claims are also not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, US’932 discloses that the liquid product flow out of the reactor and is subjected to one or more purification steps comprising evaporation steps ([0049]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, the claim is interpreted as being dependent on claim 9. The limitation “wherein one or more bottoms streams of distillation…” would thus be further limiting the “one or more distillation steps” of claim 9. The distillation steps in claim 9 is recited as one alternative method for conducting the purification process, the other alternative being one or more evaporation steps. Since US’932 teaches the one or more evaporation steps, the one or more distillation steps and any claim that limits the one or more distillation steps, such as the scope of claim 11, is not given patentable weight and US’932 would still read on the claim.
Regarding claim 12, US’932 teaches tungstate salts ([0027]).
Regarding claim 13, the catalyst are added in a continuous or discontinuous manner ([0028]).
Regarding claim 14, the hydrogenolysis metal catalyst component consists of one or more of the group selected from iron, cobalt, nickel, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, iridium and platinum ([0026]).
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 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,655,081.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a process for producing ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol in a continuous manner from a feed to a reactor, the feed comprising a carbohydrate source in an aqueous liquid, the reactor further being fed with hydrogen gas, the reactor comprising a catalyst system, said catalyst system comprising a tungsten-containing compound and a hydrogenolysis metal selected from the groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of Elements, wherein a liquid product flow out of the reactor comprises glycols and one or more polyols.
It is noted that the instant limitation “wherein the hydrogen gas being fed to the reactor is provided by a hydrogen production section comprising…” is a product by process claim language as a result of the hydrogen gas product. The product by process limitation is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps for preparing hydrogen gas, but only to the structure implied by the steps, in this case, only to hydrogen gas. See MPEP § 2113:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, "[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes." Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 ( "a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim" ).
Furthermore, because the process steps do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristic to the final hydrogen gas, the process steps are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2113:
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," "ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding "the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure," and discussing several cases since Garnero that held "limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture").
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims of ‘081 are silent that the reactor further provides an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane (claim 1) and wherein the amount of off-gas from the reactor has a specific weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in the process of between 0.05 and 0.70 ton/ton MEG (claim 15). However, since the reference teaches every limitation of the claimed process, there is a prima facie case of anticipation for the reactor to further providing an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane and for the amount of off-gas from the reactor to have the claimed weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in US’932. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, the claims appear to be further limiting the product by process claim language of claim 6 and for the reasons noted above, the claims are also not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘081 recites that the liquid product flow out of the reactor and is subjected to one or more purification steps comprising distillation steps.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘081 recites that the bottom stream of the distillation comprises polyols and that one of the bottom stream is subjected to burning in a boiler to produce steam at a pressure of between 5 and 70 bara.
Regarding claim 12, claim 7 of ’081 recites the tungsten-containing compounds as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of ‘081 recites that the catalyst are added in a continuous or discontinuous manner.
Regarding claim 14, the hydrogenolysis metal catalyst component consists of one or more of the group selected from iron, cobalt, nickel, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, iridium and platinum (claim 13 of ‘081).
The process of the instant claims is generic to the claimed process of '081 because the claims in '081 recite additional steps of purifying the flow out of the reactor and thus the entire scope of '081 claims falls within the scope of the instant claims. In accordance to MPEP § 804, the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of ‘081.
Claims 6-8, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,059,768B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a process for producing ethylene glycol in a continuous manner from a feed to a reactor, the feed comprising a carbohydrate source in an aqueous liquid, the reactor further being fed with hydrogen gas, the reactor comprising a catalyst system, said catalyst system comprising a tungsten-containing compound and a hydrogenolysis metal selected from the groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of Elements, wherein a liquid product flow out of the reactor comprises glycols and one or more polyols.
It is noted that the instant limitation “wherein the hydrogen gas being fed to the reactor is provided by a hydrogen production section comprising…” is a product by process claim language as a result of the hydrogen gas product. The product by process limitation is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps for preparing hydrogen gas, but only to the structure implied by the steps, in this case, only to hydrogen gas. See MPEP § 2113:
Furthermore, because the process steps do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristic to the final hydrogen gas, the process steps are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2113:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims of ‘768 are silent that the reactor further provides one or more polyols and an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane (claim 1) and wherein the amount of off-gas from the reactor has a specific weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in the process of between 0.05 and 0.70 ton/ton MEG (claim 15). However, since the reference teaches every limitation of the claimed process, there is a prima facie case of anticipation for the reactor to further providing an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane and for the amount of off-gas from the reactor to have the claimed weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in US’932. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, the claims appear to be further limiting the product by process claim language of claim 6 and for the reasons noted above, the claims are also not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘768 recites that the catalyst are added in a continuous or discontinuous manner.
The process of the instant claims is generic to the claimed process of ‘768 because the claims in ‘768 recite additional element of continuously or periodically adding the heterogenous catalyst to the reactor and thus the entire scope of ‘768 claims falls within the scope of the instant claims. In accordance to MPEP § 804, the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of ‘768.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,131,600B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a process for producing ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol in a continuous manner from a feed to a reactor, the feed comprising a carbohydrate source in an aqueous liquid, the reactor further being fed with hydrogen gas, the reactor comprising a catalyst system, said catalyst system comprising a tungsten-containing compound and a hydrogenolysis metal selected from the groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of Elements, wherein a liquid product flow out of the reactor comprises glycols and one or more polyols.
It is noted that the instant limitation “wherein the hydrogen gas being fed to the reactor is provided by a hydrogen production section comprising…” is a product by process claim language as a result of the hydrogen gas product. The product by process limitation is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps for preparing hydrogen gas, but only to the structure implied by the steps, in this case, only to hydrogen gas. See MPEP § 2113:
Furthermore, because the process steps do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristic to the final hydrogen gas, the process steps are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2113:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims of ‘600 are silent that the reactor further provides one or more polyols and an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane (claim 1) and wherein the amount of off-gas from the reactor has a specific weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in the process of between 0.05 and 0.70 ton/ton MEG (claim 15). However, since the reference teaches every limitation of the claimed process, there is a prima facie case of anticipation for the reactor to further providing an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane and for the amount of off-gas from the reactor to have the claimed weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in US’932. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, the claims appear to be further limiting the product by process claim language of claim 6 and for the reasons noted above, the claims are also not given patentable weight.
The process of the instant claims is generic to the claimed process of ‘600 because the claims in ‘600 recite additional element of using a diluent in the reaction and thus the entire scope of ‘600 claims falls within the scope of the instant claims. In accordance to MPEP § 804, the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of ‘600.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,184B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a process for producing ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol in a continuous manner from a feed to a reactor, the feed comprising a carbohydrate source in an aqueous liquid, the reactor further being fed with hydrogen gas, the reactor comprising a catalyst system, said catalyst system comprising a tungsten-containing compound and a hydrogenolysis metal selected from the groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of Elements, wherein a liquid product flow out of the reactor comprises glycols and one or more polyols.
It is noted that the instant limitation “wherein the hydrogen gas being fed to the reactor is provided by a hydrogen production section comprising…” is a product by process claim language as a result of the hydrogen gas product. The product by process limitation is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps for preparing hydrogen gas, but only to the structure implied by the steps, in this case, only to hydrogen gas. See MPEP § 2113:
Furthermore, because the process steps do not appear to impart distinctive structural characteristic to the final hydrogen gas, the process steps are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2113:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims of ‘184 are silent that the reactor further provides one or more polyols and an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane (claim 1) and wherein the amount of off-gas from the reactor has a specific weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in the process of between 0.05 and 0.70 ton/ton MEG (claim 15). However, since the reference teaches every limitation of the claimed process, there is a prima facie case of anticipation for the reactor to further providing an off-gas comprising hydrogen and methane and for the amount of off-gas from the reactor to have the claimed weight in ton/ton of monoethylene glycol produced in US’932. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, the claims appear to be further limiting the product by process claim language of claim 6 and for the reasons noted above, the claims are also not given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 12-13, claim 6 of’184 recites the same instantly claimed species of the tungsten-containing compound and that the tungsten compound that is continuously or periodically added to the reactor.
Regarding claim 14, claim 7 of ‘184 recites that the hydrogenolysis metal from groups 8, 9 or 10 of the Periodic Table of the Elements is selected from the group consisting of Cu, Fe, Ni, Co, Pd, Pt, Ru, Rh, Ir, Os and combinations thereof.
The process of the instant claims is generic to the claimed process of ‘184 because the claims in ‘184 recite additional element of using a diluent in the reaction and thus the entire scope of ‘184 claims falls within the scope of the instant claims. In accordance to MPEP § 804, the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of ‘184.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected and no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHANIT W BAHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/MEDHANIT W BAHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
