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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on July 16, 2026 are accepted.
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 1-6 and 15 are finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6 and 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,016. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the patent claims may be construed broadly enough to encompass the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Upon applicant submitting a proper, timely-filed terminal disclaimer, claims 1-11 and 14-19 will be allowed.
Claims 7-11, 14 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If applicant submits a proper, timely-filed terminal disclaimer, applicant does not need to place any of claims 7-11, 14 and 16-19 in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 would be allowed for the reasons provided by applicant in the Remarks filed on July 16, 2026.
While claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting for the reasons provided above, claims 7-11, 14 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for at least the reasons provided by applicant in the Remarks filed on July 16, 2026 since the claims include all the limitations of claim 1 which is otherwise allowable over the prior art.
Per claim 20, while it is known in the art to provide a device for in-water automatic spreading configured to spread a medicament in a water body, comprising:
a storage module configured to store a medicament to be spread;
a driving module configured to separate the medicament from the storage
module;
a medicament outlet configured as an outlet for the medicament to be spread to
enter a liquid after being separated from the storage module;
a walking module configured to drive the device for in-water automatic spreading
to move in the water body; and
a control module, being at least connected with the driving module and the
walking module, configured to control the driving module and the walking module,
wherein the storage module is a storage chamber, the medicament is directly or
indirectly accommodated in the storage chamber; the medicament outlet fluidly
communicates with the outlet of the storage module;
a cleaning module;
a main water pump including an impeller, wherein the main water pump is
configured to:
drive external liquid to flow into the device through at least one liquid inlet and
through the cleaning module so as to filter impurities in the external liquid and
produce cleaned liquid;
drive the cleaned liquid to flow through the medicament outlet and spread the cleaned liquid
into the water body through a liquid outlet, wherein the impeller is configured to act
as an agitating member of an agitating module; and
discharge liquid through the liquid outlet so as to provide a driving force for
movement of the device in a direction opposite to a liquid discharging direction.
(see, for example, WO 2021/100033 to Schloss et al.) and it would have been a routine matter of design choice to make the storage chamber rigid, in the examiner’s opinion, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the device further comprising the main pump being configured so as to uniformly mix the medicament with the cleaned liquid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 0900-1730.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/FRED PRINCE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights