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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: a space should be added between the period and The after the claim number (i.e. 10.The should be 10. The). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The term “long carbon chain” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long carbon chain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is unclear because there is no certainty with respect to what qualifies as a long carbon chain and what would fail to qualify as a long carbon chain. What length carbon chain (number of carbon atoms) is necessary in order to qualify under the relative term as a "long" carbon chain? What length carbon chain would fall outside the scope of the claim? How does one having ordinary skill in the art avoid infringement of Claim 10 by employing an additive comprising an epoxy group and a carbon chain that isn’t long? The metes and bounds of this claim limitation cannot be readily ascertained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses resin composition [abstract], wherein Example 9 [Ex. 9; 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9] contains 10 parts by mass PR-56-2 (m/p-cresol Novolak resin; Mw = 15,000 [Table 1]), 11 parts by mass HMPMPS (4-(hydroxymethyl)phenoxymethyl polystyrene; Mw = 36,000 [Table 1]), 12 parts by mass resin solution c (resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group; Mw = 8,300; 20% solids in γ-butyrolactone [0195; Table 1]), 10 parts by mass resin solution d (copolymer prepared from 4-hydroxyphenyl methacrylate; Mw = 11,800; 20% solids in γ-butyrolactone [0081; 0195; Table 1]), 5 parts by mass tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)methane, 23 parts by mass TPPA(4)-150DF (1,2-naphthoquinonediazide-4-sulfonic acid ester of α,α,α′-tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-ethyl-4-isopropylbenzene [0199]), 29 parts by mass valifast black 3804 [02002], and 0.14 parts by mass megaface F-559 (fluorosurfactant [0201]) [Ex. 9; 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Regarding claims 7-9 and 11-12: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1].
Claim 7 further defines species of the fluoro-based phenol (D-1) recited in claim 1. Claim 8-9 further defines species of the polyhydroxyphenol resin (D-2) recited in claim 1. Claim 11 further defines species of the polyether resin (D-4) recited in claim 1. Claim 12 further defines species of the thermal acid generator comprising a sulfonate ion (D-5) recited in claim 1. However, as claimed, such species only further define the genus of the optional fluoro-based phenol (D-1), polyhydroxyphenol resin (D-2), polyether resin (D-4), and thermal acid generator comprising a sulfonate ion (D-5) (i.e. claims 7-9 and 11-12 do not require the resin to comprise the fluoro-based phenol (D-1), polyhydroxyphenol resin (D-2), and polyether resin (D-4), and thermal acid generator comprising a sulfonate ion (D-5) respectively).
Regarding claim 15: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses 5 parts tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)methane} per 21 parts by mass (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); corresponding to ~24 parts per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS) [Ex. 9; 0211, 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572) as applied to claim 1 above, when taken with Yamaguchi et al. (US 2024/0172550).
Regarding claim 6: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses megaface F-559 fluorosurfactant containing a hydroxyl group [0172; 0201].
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2024/0172550) provides evidence for megaface F-559 containing a hydroxyl group [0113-0115; 0121].
Claim(s) 16-17, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 20: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses resin composition [abstract], wherein Example 9 [Ex. 9; 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9] contains 10 parts by mass PR-56-2 (m/p-cresol Novolak resin; Mw = 15,000 [Table 1]), 11 parts by mass HMPMPS (4-(hydroxymethyl)phenoxymethyl polystyrene; Mw = 36,000 [Table 1]), 12 parts by mass resin solution c (resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group; Mw = 8,300; 20% solids in γ-butyrolactone [0195; Table 1]), 10 parts by mass resin solution d (copolymer prepared from 4-hydroxyphenyl methacrylate; Mw = 11,800; 20% solids in γ-butyrolactone [0081; 0195; Table 1]), 5 parts by mass tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)methane, 23 parts by mass TPPA(4)-150DF (1,2-naphthoquinonediazide-4-sulfonic acid ester of α,α,α′-tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-ethyl-4-isopropylbenzene [0199]), 29 parts by mass valifast black 3804 [02002], and 0.14 parts by mass megaface F-559 (fluorosurfactant [0201]) [Ex. 9; 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Regarding claim 24: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses curing the composition of Ex. 9 to afford a film [Ex. 9; 0204-0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572) as applied to claim 16 above, when taken with Yamaguchi et al. (US 2024/0172550).
Regarding claim 21: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses megaface F-559 fluorosurfactant containing a hydroxyl group [0172; 0201].
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2024/0172550) provides evidence for megaface F-559 containing a hydroxyl group [0113-0115; 0121].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses polyalkenylphenolic resin (a) of general formula 1 having a Mw = 500-30,000 [0045-0056], with a specific polyalkenylphenolic resin (a) having Mw = 15,000 [Table 1].
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979) [See MPEP 2144.09].
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977) [See MPEP 2144.09].
Regarding claim 4: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses p-hydroxystyrene [0062-0063] having a Mw = 10,000-50,000 as the hydroxypolystyrene resin (b) [0057-0064].
Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically disclose a Mw = 12,400-19,300. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses epoxy resins containing an ether group as (c) [0067].
Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically disclose Ex. 9 containing an additional epoxy resin containing an ether group as (c). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an additional epoxy resin containing an ether group as (c) based on the invention of Furue et al. (US ‘572), and would have been motivated to do so since Furue et al. (US ‘572) suggests that the composition can contain epoxy resins containing an ether group as (c) [0067]. Additionally, “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) [see MPEP 2144.06].
Regarding claim 13: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses γ-butyrolactone, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate and ethyl acetate as the solvent (F) [0177-0178].
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) [see MPEP 2144.06].
Regarding claim 14: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 1]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses: 57 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); 0.7 part megaface F-559 per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); 24 parts tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)methane per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS) [Ex. 9; 0211, 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically disclose 60 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); does not specifically disclose 1 part megaface F-559 per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed 60 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group and 1 part megaface F-559 in Ex. 9; as 60 parts per 100 parts is close enough to 57 parts per 100, and 1 part per 100 parts is close enough to 0.7 part per 100 parts.
Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses 1 to 60% solids [0179]. Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically claim 3100 to 5100 parts by mass solvent, per 100 parts by mass (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS). However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 18-19 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furue et al. (US 2020/0249572) as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses polyalkenylphenolic resin (a) of general formula 1 having a Mw = 500-30,000 [0045-0056], with a specific polyalkenylphenolic resin (a) having Mw = 15,000 [Table 1].
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979) [See MPEP 2144.09].
Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977) [See MPEP 2144.09].
Regarding claim 19: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses p-hydroxystyrene [0062-0063] having a Mw = 10,000-50,000 as the hydroxypolystyrene resin (b) [0057-0064].
Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically disclose a Mw = 12,400-19,300. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 22: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses γ-butyrolactone, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate and ethyl acetate as the solvent (F) [0177-0178].
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982) [see MPEP 2144.06].
Regarding claim 23: Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses the basic claimed resin composition [as set forth above with respect to claim 16]; wherein Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses: 57 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); 0.7 part megaface F-559 per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS) [Ex. 9; 0211, 0213; Table 4, Ex. 9].
Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically disclose 60 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS); does not specifically disclose 1 part megaface F-559 per 100 parts (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [See MPEP 2144.05]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed 60 parts resin having epoxy group and phenolic hydroxyl group and 1 part megaface F-559 in Ex. 9; as 60 parts per 100 parts is close enough to 57 parts per 100, and 1 part per 100 parts is close enough to 0.7 part per 100 parts.
Furue et al. (US ‘572) discloses 1 to 60% solids [0179]. Furue et al. (US ‘572) does not specifically claim 3100 to 5100 parts by mass solvent, per 100 parts by mass (PR-56-2 + HMPMPS). However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
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 16-24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-18 of copending Application No. 18/090,522 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the resin composition of Application No. 18/090,522 and cured film containing resin A (hydroxyl polystyrene resin (A-1) {molecular weight 12400-19300}, hydroxyl phenolic resin (A-2), and/or polyhydroxy phenol resin (A-3)), crosslinking agent (B), surfactant (C) and solvent (D), anticipates the resin composition and cured film of claims 16-17, 19-22 and 24 containing resin A (phenol-based resin (A-1) resin and/or polystyrene resin containing a hydroxyl group (A-2)), crosslinking agent (B), surfactant (C) and solvent (D).
Application No. 18/090,522 claims a molecular weight of phenolic resin (A-3) of 600-12000 [claim 2], which overlaps the claimed molecular weight (A-1) of 360 to 39,2000 (instant claim 18). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Application No. 18/090,522 claims 0.45 wt% to 4.05 wt% (A), 0.45 wt% to 4.05 wt% (B) and 0.01 wt% to 0.1 wt% (C) [claims 1, 9, 12] {corresponding to ~ 91.8 wt% to 99.09 wt% solvent (D)}. While Application No. 18/090,522 does not specifically claim 3100 to 5100 parts solvent, per 100 parts A [instant claim 23], in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [See MPEP 2144.05].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
See attached form PTO-892.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F PEPITONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3299. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEPITONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767