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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1 and 11 were amended.
This is a Non-Final Action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Based on prior art searching and applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been moved the prosecution forward, overcoming the current prior art of record and moving the claims to allowable over the prior art of record. The application will be allowed once eTD is provided to overcome the ODP rejections.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15-18 of Patent No. US 10,530,844. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Instant Application
US Patent: US 10,530,844
1, 11
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
2, 12
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
3, 13
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
4, 14
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
5, 15
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
6, 16
6
7, 17
7
8, 18
8
9, 19
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
10, 20
1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 15, 17 and 18
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of Patent No. US 11,363,096. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Instant Application
US Patent: US 8,280,913
1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 and 20
1
5, 15
2
6, 16
5, 11, 17
7, 17
4, 10, 16
8, 18
3, 9, 15
8, 19
1
10, 20
1
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US 11,838,356. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Instant Application
US Patent: US 11,838,356
1, 11
1, 11
2, 12
2, 12
3, 13
3, 13
4, 14
4, 14
5, 15
5, 15
6, 16
6, 16
7, 17
7, 17
8, 18
8, 18
9, 19
9, 19
10, 20
10, 20
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. 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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159