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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1. 114.Applicant’s submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Response non-statutory double patenting rejection for amended claims 1 and 6-7 examiner maintains the non-statutory double patenting rejection. Please see blow rejections. The scope of the current claims 1 and 6-7 is same from parent-grant US 12,069,258, 11,438,589 and 10,911,756.
Regarding dependent claims, in response to applicant's arguments, the examiner
recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, parent-grant US 12,069,258 child US 18,762,081in combination with parent US continuation 17,130,614 parent-grant US 11,438,589 child US 17,876,620 parent US continuation 16,342,310 parent-grant US 10,911,756 meet all rejected limitations of the instant application.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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); InreGoodman, 11 F.3d 1046,29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In reVogel, 422F.2d 438,164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory 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 and 6-7 rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent No. 12,069,258 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same scope of the invention, but using different variations of the claim language.
Claims 1 and 6-7 rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 14 of US Patent No. 11,438,589 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same scope of the invention, but using different variations of the claim language.
Claims 1 and 6-7 rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 14 of US Patent No. 10,911,756 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same scope of the invention, but using different variations of the claim language.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to combine the teachings of current Application 18/762,081 although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they are obvious variations of each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-7 would be allowable pending the non-statutory double patenting rejection
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487