DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/09/2026 in response to the previous Office Action (09/12/2025) is acknowledged. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections (items 4-9) have been maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 02/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Double Patenting
5. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,030,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,030,000.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
7. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,227,316.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
8. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,590,097. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,590,097.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
9. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,781,190.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
10. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,207.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
11. Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,724,994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is significant overlap between the instant claims and claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,724,994.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 03/09/2026 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicants requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are otherwise allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFRREY MURRAY can be reached at (571) 272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kahsay Habte/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
March 17, 2026