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 Invention I, claims 1–13 and 16–18 in the reply filed on February 02, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant believes that a search and examination of all the claims would not place an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because searching and examining the claims simultaneously would pose an undue burden on the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election filed August 01, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3, 4, 8–13, 17 and 18 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.
Claims 3, 4 and 10 recite:
3. A filter media as in claim 1, wherein the nanofibers are at least partially disposed within the cavities of the plurality of cavities. Emphasis added.
4. A filter media as in claim 1, wherein the fiber web is a first layer of the filter media, and the nanofibers form a second layer disposed on top of the first layer. Emphasis added.
10. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the nanofibers comprise a matrix polymer. Emphasis added.
Claims 3, 4 and 10 are each indefinite because “the nanofibers” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome these rejections, claims 3, 4 and 10 could be amended to depend from claim 2.
Claims 11 and 12 are indefinite because they depend from claim 10.
Claim 8 recites:
8. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate and large cavities of the plurality of cavities together have an average area of less than or equal to 500 microns2. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because “the intermedia and large cavities” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites:
9. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the large cavities of the plurality of cavities have an average area of less than or equal to 1300 microns2. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because “the large cavities” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites:
13. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises only polymers with a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa. Emphasis added.
Claim 13 is indefinite because “the matrix polymer” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 13 could be amended to depend from claim 10.
Claim 17 recites:
17. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the additional layer comprises a fiber web. Emphasis added.
Claim 17 is indefinite because “the additional layer” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 17 could be amended to depend from claim 16.
Claim 18 recites:
18. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the fiber web of the additional layer comprises a plurality of glass fibers. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because “the fiber web of the additional layer” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 18 could be amended to depend from claim 17.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1–10 and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1 and in further view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sanders teaches a filter media, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Sanders [0002].
The filter media comprises a web of thermoplastic fibers, which reads on the claimed “fiber web.” See Sanders [0032]. The web comprises a “plurality of surface cavities” because the fibers are etched using a plasma treatment. See Sanders [0025].
The web comprises thermoplastic fibers (“synthetic fibers”) in an amount of 100% of the fiber web (as the web is made exclusively of thermoplastic fibers). See Sanders [0032]. This reads on the web comprises synthetic fibers “in an amount of at least 50 wt% of the fiber web.”
The thermoplastic fibers are wetlaid staple fibers. See Sanders [0041].
The web has a developed interfacial area ratio greater than 0 because the etching process increases the surface area of the web. See Sanders [0026].
Sanders differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the length of the thermoplastic fibers (the “synthetic fibers”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the thermoplastic fibers have an average length of less than or equal to 40 mm.
But, as noted, the thermoplastic fibers are wetlaid staple fibers. See Sanders [0041]. With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a layer having wetlaid staple fibers, where the staple fibers have an average length of 0.3 to 100 mm. See Jaganathan [0028], [0127]. It would have been obvious for the average length of the wetlaid staple fibers in Sanders to range from 0.3 to 100 mm because this is a suitable length for wetlaid staple fibers used in a filter media. The prior art range of 0.3 to 100 mm overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 40 mm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Sanders also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the exact dimensions of the developed interfacial area ratio of the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the web has a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than or equal to 0.1.
But the developed interfacial area ratio is a parameter that measures the additional surface area added by texture compared to an ideally flat, smooth plane. Also, a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than 0.1 means that the surface texture adds more than 10% additional surface area compared to an ideally smooth flat plane of the same projected footprint. In Sanders, the web is etched for the purpose of increasing the surface area of the fibers to allow for more area for particle entrapment. See Sanders [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the developed interfacial area ratio of the web to be at least 0.1 to ensure that the fibers have a sufficiently increased surface to allow for more area for particle entrapment to improve the effectiveness of the filter.
Sanders further differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the cross-dimensional frequency of the etched cavities on the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the cavities have an average cross-dimensional frequency of greater than or equal to 3,000 surface cavities per meter.
But the etched cavities are produced using a plasma etching process. See Sanders [0025]. Also, the magnified images of the fibers in Figs. 1–12 show that the cavities are not visible. With this in mind, Lee teaches a plasma etching process for the fibers of a filter media where the etching process creates nanopore cavities with the fiber having several cavities per micron, meaning that the frequency is greater than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an individual fiber. See Lee Fig. 3b, [0020], [0034].
PNG
media_image1.png
774
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to have a cross-dimensional frequency of greater than 3,000 cavities per meter because the cavities are produced by an etching process, and this type of etching technique conventionally results in more than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an etched fiber.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 16 and 17, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Sanders differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the filter media comprises a plurality of nanofibers disposed on the web. Sanders differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the web being a first layer of the filter media and the nanofibers forming a second layer disposed on top of the first layer. Sanders differs from claims 16 and 17 because it is silent as to the filter media comprising an additional layer at least partially disposed on the web where the additional layer comprises a fiber web.
But the filter media can be used for air filtration. See Sanders [0004]. Also, the web is electrostatically charged and comprises wetlaid staple fibers. Id. at [0004], [0041].
With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media 100 for air filtration comprising an electrostatically charged first layer 110 comprising wetlaid staple fibers (see Jaganathan Fig. 1A, [0100], [0127], [0161], [0183]) and a second layer 120 comprising nanofibers disposed on the first layer 110 (id. at Fig. 1A, [0100], [0167]). The second layer 120 is beneficial because it increases the efficiency of the filter media 100 by acting as a main filter layer. Id. at [0100].
PNG
media_image2.png
493
1163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the filter media of Sanders to include the second layer 120 of Jaganathan disposed on the web of Sanders to improve the filtration efficiency of the filter media of Sanders.
With this modification, the nanofibers of the second layer 120 (disposed on the web of Sanders) read on the “plurality of nanofibers disposed on the fiber web (claim 2). Also, the web of Sanders is a first layer of the filter media and the nanofibers form a second layer 120 disposed on top of the first layer, as seen in Fig. 1A of Jaganathan (claim 4). The second layer 120 reads on the “additional layer at least partially disposed on the fiber web, wherein the additional layer comprises a fiber web” (claims 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 3, Jaganathan teaches that the nanofibers of the second layer 102 are deposited directly onto the first layer 101 (analogous to the web of Sanders) by an electrospinning process. See Jaganathan [0121]. The nanofibers have a diameter as small as 20 nm. Id. at [0167]. Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]), and it would have been obvious for the etched pores on the fibers in Sanders to have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities in Sanders are manufactured using a similar plasma etching process of Lee. With this modification, at least some of the nanofibers would be expected to be at least partially disposed within the etched cavities of Sanders, as claimed, because some of the nanofibers would have a smaller diameter than the diameter of the cavities.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sanders teaches a filter media, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Sanders [0002].
The filter media comprises a web of thermoplastic fibers, which reads on the “first layer comprising a fiber web.” The web comprises a “plurality of surface cavities” because the fibers are etched using a plasma treatment. See Sanders [0025].
The web comprises thermoplastic fibers (“synthetic fibers”) in an amount of 100% of the fiber web (as the web is made exclusively of thermoplastic fibers). See Sanders [0032]. This reads on the web comprises synthetic fibers “in an amount of at least 50 wt% of the fiber web.”
The thermoplastic fibers are wetlaid staple fibers. See Sanders [0041].
The web has a developed interfacial area ratio greater than 0 because the etching process increases the surface area of the web. See Sanders [0026].
Sanders differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the length of the thermoplastic fibers (the “synthetic fibers”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the thermoplastic fibers have an average length of less than or equal to 40 mm.
But, as noted, the thermoplastic fibers are wetlaid staple fibers. See Sanders [0041]. With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a layer having wetlaid staple fibers, where the staple fibers have an average length of 0.3 to 100 mm. See Jaganathan [0028], [0127]. It would have been obvious for the average length of the wetlaid staple fibers in Sanders to range from 0.3 to 100 mm because this is a suitable length for wetlaid staple fibers used in a filter media. The prior art range of 0.3 to 100 mm overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 40 mm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Sanders also differs from claims 5 and 6 because it is silent as to the exact dimensions of the developed interfacial area ratio of the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the web has a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than or equal to 0.1.
But the developed interfacial area ratio is a parameter that measures the additional surface area added by texture compared to an ideally flat, smooth plane. Also, a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than 0.1 means that the surface texture adds more than 10% additional surface area compared to an ideally smooth flat plane of the same projected footprint. In Sanders, the web is etched for the purpose of increasing the surface area of the fibers to allow for more area for particle entrapment. See Sanders [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the developed interfacial area ratio of the web to be at least 0.1 (when attached to another layer and when separated from another layer and laid flat) to ensure that the fibers have a sufficiently increased surface to allow for more area for particle entrapment to improve the effectiveness of the filter.
Sanders further differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the cross-dimensional frequency of the etched cavities on the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the cavities have an average cross-dimensional frequency of greater than or equal to 3,000 surface cavities per meter.
But the etched cavities are produced using a plasma etching process. See Sanders [0025]. Also, the magnified images of the fibers in Figs. 1–12 show that the cavities are not visible. With this in mind, Lee teaches a plasma etching process for the fibers of a filter media where the etching process creates nanopore cavities with the fiber having several cavities per micron, meaning that the frequency is greater than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an individual fiber. See Lee Fig. 3b, [0020], [0034].
PNG
media_image1.png
774
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to have a cross-dimensional frequency of greater than 3,000 cavities per meter because the cavities are produced by an etching process, and this type of etching technique conventionally results in more than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an etched fiber.
Sanders further differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the filter media comprising a second layer comprising a plurality of nanofibers disposed on the web.
But the filter media can be used for air filtration. See Sanders [0004]. Also, the web is electrostatically charged and comprises wetlaid staple fibers. Id. at [0004], [0041].
With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media 100 for air filtration comprising an electrostatically charged first layer 110 comprising wetlaid staple fibers (see Jaganathan Fig. 1A, [0100], [0127], [0161], [0183]) and a second layer 120 comprising nanofibers disposed on the first layer 110 (id. at Fig. 1A, [0100], [0167]). The second layer 120 is beneficial because it increases the efficiency of the filter media 100 by acting as a main filter layer. Id. at [0100].
PNG
media_image2.png
493
1163
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the filter media of Sanders to include the second layer 120 of Jaganathan disposed on the web of Sanders to improve the filtration efficiency of the filter media of Sanders.
With this modification, the second layer 120 of Jaganathan reads on the “second layer comprising a plurality of nanofibers disposed on the fiber web.”
Regarding claim 7, Sanders teaches that the web is non-woven because the fibers are wetlaid, which is a technique of making a nonwoven web. See Sanders [0041].
Regarding claim 8, Sanders is interpreted such that the etched cavities (the “plurality of cavities”) are not uniform in size because they are produced by a plasma etching technique that produces non-uniform cavities within a range (as evidenced by Lee [0034] teaching etched nanopores have a range of 1 to 1,000 nm). The intermediate sized cavities and a large cavities read on the “intermediate and large cavities.” Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]) and it would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to also have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities are manufactured using a similar plasma etching technique. With this modification, the “intermediate” cavities of Sanders are interpreted as having an average diameter of 500 nm (0.5 micron) and the “large” cavities of Sanders are interpreted as having an average diameter of 1,000 nm (1 micron). The combined area of these cavities is around 1.77 microns2, which is within the claimed range of an average area of less than or equal to 500 microns2.
Regarding claim 9, Sanders is interpreted such that the etched cavities (the “plurality of cavities”) are not uniform in size because they are produced by a plasma etching technique that produces non-uniform cavities within a range (as evidenced by Lee [0034] teaching etched nanopores have a range of 1 to 1,000 nm). The large cavities read on the “large cavities.” Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]) and it would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to also have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities are manufactured using a similar plasma etching technique. With this modification, the “large cavities” of Sanders is interpreted as having a diameter of 1,000 nm (1 micron). The average area of the large cavities is around 0.78 micron2, which is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 1300 micron2.
Regarding claim 10, Sanders as modified teaches that the nanofibers of the second layer 102 of Jaganathan (also described as the main filter layer) comprise a “matrix polymer,” which is the polymer used to make the nanofibers. See Jaganathan [0166].
Regarding claim 18, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Sanders differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to the filter media including an additional layer comprising a fiber web comprising a plurality of glass fibers.
But Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a third layer comprising glass fibers, with the third layer acting as a support layer for the filter media. See Jaganathan [0107], [0128]. It would have been obvious for the filter media of Sanders to include a support layer comprising glass fibers to provide structural support for the filter media.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1 and in further view of Lievana et al., “Impact Modification of PA-6 and PBT by Epoxy-Functionalized Rubbers” (2003)1.
Regarding claim 11, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as explained above.
Sanders as modified differs from claim 11 because Jaganathan is silent as to the nanofibers comprising an impact modifier dispersed in the polymer used to make the nanofibers (the “matrix polymer”).
But the matrix polymer can be nylon (i.e., polyamide). See Jaganathan [0166]. With this in mind, Lievana teaches adding an impact modifier to polyamide to improve its toughness. See Lievana summary, introduction. It would have been obvious to include the impact modifier of Lievana into the nylon of Jaganathan to improve the toughness of the polyamide.
Regarding claim 12, Lievana teaches that the impact modifier can be 5 wt% of the total weight of the composition. See Lievana summary. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the impact modifier to be included in the amount of 5 wt% of the total weight of the nanofibers of Jaganathan because Lievana teaches that this is a suitable amount to improve the toughness of the polyamide. The prior art value of 5 wt% is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 wt% and less than or equal to 25 wt% of the total weight of the nanofibers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1 and in further view of Largon Cabello et al., US 2021/0322907 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Sanders as modified differs from claim 13 because Jaganathan is silent as to the molecular weight of the polymer used to make the nanofibers of the second layer 102 (the “matrix polymer”). Therefore, Jaganathan fails to provide enough information to teach that the polymer only comprises polymers with a molecular weigh of greater than 3 kDa, as claimed.
But Jaganathan teaches poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) can be the polymer used to make the nanofibers. See Jaganathan [0166]. Also, Lagron Cabello teaches a filter material comprising a nanofiber layer with nanofibers made of PVDF with a molecular weight of 500 kDa. See Lagron Cabello [0150]. It would have been obvious to use the PVDF of Lagron Cabello as the PVDF used to make the nanofibers of Jaganathan because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
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.
U.S. Application No. 18/320,083
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ’083 application teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1, except that it is silent as to the fiber web comprises the synthetic fibers in an amount of at least 50% of the fiber web. But Sanders teaches a filter media comprising a fiber web of synthetic thermoplastic fibers comprising etched cavities, where the fiber web comprises the synthetic fibers in an amount of 100 wt% of web. See Sanders [0032]. It would have been obvious for the fiber web of claim 1 of the ’083 application to comprise 100 wt% of the synthetic fibers because this is a suitable amount for forming a fiber web of a filter media.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 3 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 7.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 4 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 8.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 5 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 9.
Claims 10 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 10 and 13, claim 6 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claims 10 and 13.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 12 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 16.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 17, claim 13 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 17.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/320,083 in view of Sanders, US 2005/006303 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 18, claim 14 of the ’083 application (modified in view of Sanders as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 A copy of Lievana is attached with this communication.