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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,659. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the elements (annular cartridge, protrusion, head, plug, annular collar and cellular foam) recited in the application claims sufficiently to establish a clear case of anticipation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 3376898 to Hugley (Hugley) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0038391 to Kloft et al. (Kloft).
Kloft discloses a stabilizer/pulsation dampener device (Kloft, abstract, title), an analogous field of endeavor to the pressure dampener device of Hugley.
With regard to claim 1, Hugley discloses a stabilizer cartridge (column 1, lines 22-26), comprising:
an annular cartridge of deformable material (10, column 2, lines 41-44 “a flexible membrane in the form of an elongate flexible tube formed of natural or synthetic rubber or any suitable or desirable elastomer”) into which a protrusion (26, fig. 3, column 4, lines 1-3) from a head (25, figs. 1 and 3, column 4, lines 1-3) is inserted at a first end thereof (shown in figs. 1, 3, 6);
a plug (31, fig. 1, column 4, lines 10-13) inserted into the annular cartridge at a second end thereof (shown in fig. 1), wherein the protrusion, the plug, and an annular collar (32, fig. 1) seal an interior volume of the annular cartridge (shown in figs. 1 and 3, disclosed at column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 7 and column 4, lines 10-13); and
a cellular foam filling the interior volume of the annular cartridge (not disclosed).
Kloft discloses a stabilizer/pulsation dampener device (10) comprising a head (22, fig. 1), a shell (12, ) sealed by the head (when 26 is inserted into opening 22 in the head as shown in fig. 2), and a cellular foam (38) included within the interior volume of the shell of deformable material (see fig. 3)
The cellular foam of Kloft allows an operational dampening stiffness gradient to be controlled as desired and also provides temperature and pressure stability during use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the stabilizer cartridge of Hugley with a cellular foam in the interior of the flexible shell in order to provide a cartridge with a tunable operational dampening stiffness gradient that also provides temperature and pressure stability and provide a more versatile and useful device.
With regard to claim 7, Hugley in view of Kloft discloses the stabilizer cartridge of Claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the deformable material is a multi-ply material (11/12/13, column 1, line 71 to column 2, line 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights