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
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connecting member in claims 2 and 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The connecting member is (130) as discussed in ¶0079 and ¶0083 as being a bolt (132).
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on October 15, 2025 is acceptable. The specification objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 22-27, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAJIMA (Japanese Patent Publication JP H07208351 A, filed in IDS received on 12/1/2025, a machine translation has been provided in the PTO-892 Notice of References cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, TAJIMA discloses: a drive member (17) for a scroll compressor (see Figure 1 and Abstract), the scroll compressor comprising a first scroll (13) and a second scroll (14), the drive member comprising:
a hub part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) with an internal hole (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the hub part comprising a first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) and a second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) opposite each other (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and
a flange part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) projecting radially outward from the first end of the hub part of the drive member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), wherein the flange part connects the drive member to the first scroll of the scroll compressor (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA where the flange part is connected to the first scroll by bolts (19), see 0010), so as to drive the first scroll to rotate (the driving member is connected with the first scroll via bolts (19), and when it rotates it will rotate the first scroll, see 0010), wherein the first scroll drives the second scroll to rotate (see Figure 1, and 0010).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, TAJIMA discloses: the flange part comprises a connecting member (19), for connecting the drive member to the first scroll of the scroll compressor (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA and 0010).
Regarding claim 6, TAJIMA discloses: a step part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) is provided on a hole wall of the internal hole of the hub part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the step part of the hub part having a step face (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA, where the step part has a step face).
Regarding claim 22, TAJIMA discloses: a scroll compressor (see Figure 1 and Abstract) comprising:
a first scroll (13) comprising a first end plate (15) and a first scroll wrap (16) projecting from the first end plate along a first direction (see Figure 1);
a second scroll (14) comprising a second end plate (21) and a second scroll wrap (22) projecting from the second end plate along a second direction opposite to the first direction (see Figure 1), the second scroll wrap and the first scroll wrap cooperating to form a compression cavity for compressing a medium (see Figure 1, in section labeled 0010);
a support (7) located at a side of the second scroll that is remote from the first scroll (see Figure 1);
an electric motor (2, 4, 5); and
the drive member as claimed in claim 1, the drive member being rotatably mounted to the support and located at the side of the second scroll that is remote from the first scroll (see Figure 1), the drive member comprising: a hub part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) with an internal hole (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the hub part comprising a first end and a second end opposite each other (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and a flange part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) projecting radially outward from the first end of the hub part of the drive member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the drive member being connected to the first scroll by means of the flange part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the electric motor driving through the hub part of the drive member the first scroll to rotate (the driving member is connected with the first scroll via bolts (19), and when it rotates it will rotate the first scroll, see 0010), and the first scroll driving the second scroll to rotate (see Figure 1, and 0010).
Regarding claim 23, TAJIMA discloses: the first scroll further comprises an outer wall (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) projecting from the first end plate in the first direction (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the outer wall being at a radially outer side of the first scroll wrap and the second scroll (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), and the outer wall being provided with a connecting member (19), the drive member being connected to the first scroll by means of the connecting member (19) (see Figure 1, 0010).
Regarding claim 24, TAJIMA discloses: the outer wall has an annular shape (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 25, TAJIMA discloses: a fixed shaft (24, 25) fixed to the support (see Figure 1), the drive member being rotatably mounted to the support by having the hub part of the drive member rotatably mounted on the fixed shaft (see Figure 1, and 0010).
Regarding claim 26, TAJIMA discloses: the second end plate of the second scroll is rotatably supported on the flange part of the drive member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA).
Regarding claim 27, TAJIMA discloses: a first bearing, the first end of the hub part being mounted on the fixed shaft by means of the first bearing; and/or
a second bearing (8), the second end of the hub part being mounted on the fixed shaft by means of the second bearing (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 29, TAJIMA discloses: the support (7) comprises: a tubular part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), and a flange part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) projecting radially from the tubular part of the support (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the second end of the hub part of the drive member being supported on the flange part of the support (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA).
Regarding claim 32, TAJIMA discloses: the flange part of the drive member is in sealed connection with the outer wall of the first scroll (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), so as to form a suction chamber (see Figure 1, where fluid enters (30) into space (20) that forms around the first and second scrolls the fluid then enters at the end of the first and second scrolls in order to compress the fluid and expel it to the center via hole (33)) of the scroll compressor, and fluid enters the compression chamber via the suction chamber (see Figure 1, and 0010).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA.
Regarding claim 13, TAJIMA discloses: the flange part has a drive member connecting hole (see Figure 1, where the flange part has a drive member connecting hole that allows the bolt (19) to extend thru), where the drive member is connected to the first scroll by means of a bolt (19).
TAJIMA fails to disclose the drive member connecting hole having a threaded part, since the first scroll has the threaded part to receive the bolt, while the drive member has a hole that the bolt goes thru.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the treaded part on the drive member instead of the first scroll, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA in view of DOEPKER (U.S. Patent Publication US 2018/0223843 A1).
Regarding claim 28, TAJIMA discloses: a step part (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) is provided on a hole wall of the internal hole of the hub part of the drive member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the step part of the hub part of the drive member having a step face facing in the second direction (see Figure 1),
the fixed shaft (24, 25) has a step part (see Figure 1 that shows a step part for the fixed shaft that includes (24, 25)), the step part of the fixed shaft having a step face facing in the first direction (see Figure 1).
TAJIMA fails to disclose the scroll compressor further comprises a first thrust bearing, the first thrust bearing being disposed between the step face of the step part of the hub part of the drive member and the step face of the step part of the fixed shaft.
Regarding claim 28, DOEPKER teaches: a first thrust bearing (91, 291, 485), the first thrust bearing being disposed between a hub part and an axially interfacing surface (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a first thrust bearing, the first thrust bearing being disposed between the step face of the step part of the hub part of the drive member and the step face of the step part of the fixed shaft in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. having a thrust bearing between two components in order to support a component in the axial direction and/or to provide a sliding surface to accept the thrust caused by the operation of the scroll compressor), as taught by DOEPKER, to a known device (i.e. scroll compressor of TAJIMA) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing the necessary support for the components in the scroll compressor that interface with each other due to forces caused by the operation of the scroll compressor.
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.
Copending Application No. 18/725475
Claims 1 and 22 are each provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over either one of claims 5/1 or 25/4/3/2/1 or 32/3/2/1 or 44/42/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope (the Examiner would like to note that identical terminology is not used, but is clearly related, i.e. hub portion is hub part, drive member is driving member, flange portion is flange part, etc).
Claims 2 and 23 are each provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 32/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claims 3-5 are each provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21/20/19/18/12/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 30/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 32/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 35/33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37/33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 39/33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 40/39/33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 41/39/33/7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 26 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 27 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 28 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 29 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope. The Examiner would like to note that the “tubular part” is the same as the recited cylindrical portion.
Claim 30 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18/12/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 31 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21/20/18/12/6/5/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 32 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 33 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 34 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 36 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 29/28/26/25/4/3/2/1 of copending Application No. 18/725475. /Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Copending Application No. 18/725449
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14/13/1of copending Application No. 18/725449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16/14/13/1of copending Application No. 18/725449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claim is broader in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 14, 15, and 35 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s submission of a New IDS prompted a new grounds of rejection.
The terminal disclaimer was not approved since the application numbers listed on the appendix are missing the filing dates. No additional fee is required with the resubmission.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 9/10/2025 and 12/1/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746