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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 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.
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(s) 2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Beckerer, Jr. (US 4842482).
With respect to claim 2, Chou discloses, an exercise bike (fig. 3) comprising:
a frame (30-60 in fig. 3) configured to rest on a ground surface (unlabeled but is the surface underneath 30 in fig. 3) and having a seat (40 in fig. 3) configured to support a user;
a rotor (70 in fig. 3) supported by the frame (frame element 32 in fig. 5 details how the frame supports rotor 70), the rotor comprising a hub (unlabeled central element in fig. 8) supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis (85 denotes the axle around which the rotor and all its associated components rotate) and a plurality of blades (72, 90-92 in fig. 8) connected to the hub (fig. 8; para. 42), wherein the hub and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis (para. 42), and wherein the plurality of blades includes a first blade having a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward in a longitudinal direction from the hub to a distal end and being elongated along the longitudinal direction (blades 72, 90-92 in fig. 8 have proximal ends connected to the hub (fig. 8) and an elongated body extending out towards, e.g. 30 in fig. 8), the elongated body having upper and lower surfaces (fig. 8) and opposed first and second edges extending longitudinally between the proximal and distal ends (fig. 8; 72, 90-92), wherein the first blade further comprises a first flange connected to the elongated body along the first edge of the first blade and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and a second flange connected to the elongated body along the second edge of the first blade and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces (para. 47; “’U’ shaped cross-section 106 configurations are contemplated.” This shape description by Chou is identical to application’s shape description in para. 70 of a U-shape. Herein each side of the U-shape is seen to disclose the first and second flange as claimed),
a drive assembly (31 in fig. 3; 35-36 in fig. 8; para. 43) operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly (35, 36 in fig. 8; para. 43) supported by the frame (fig. 3) and operably connected to the rotor (fig. 8), and a pedal assembly (31 in fig. 3; para. 43) operably connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly (para. 43).
Chou does not disclose, wherein the first blade further comprises a third flange extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and located between the first edge and the second edge.
Beckerer discloses wherein a blade further comprises a first (18a in fig. 4), second (20a in fig. 4) and a third flange (30 in fig. 4) extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and located between the first edge and the second edge (fig. 5).
Beckerer and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the third flange taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide added stiffness to the blade (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 27-29).
With respect to claim 4, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou does not expressly disclose, wherein the first flange of the first blade extends along the first edge for less than an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for less than an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction.
Beckerer discloses wherein a first flange (18b in fig. 6) of a blade (14b in fig. 6) extends along the first edge (left edge in fig. 6) for less than an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 9; col. 3, lines 50-56), and a second flange (20b in fig. 6) extends along the second edge (right edge in fig. 6) for less than an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 9; col. 3, lines 50-56).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange extension shape of Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
With respect to claim 5, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Beckerer further discloses, wherein the third flange extends longitudinally (fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou does not disclose, wherein the first flange and the second flange each have a height that is greater toward the proximal end and smaller toward the distal end.
Beckerer discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange each have a height that is greater toward the proximal end and smaller toward the distal end (fig. 6, 9; col. 3, lines 48-56 details the taper of the flanges).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange taper taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
With respect to claim 7, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 6 (see above).
Chou does not disclose, wherein the heights of the first flange and the second flange decrease continuously toward the distal end.
Beckerer discloses wherein the heights of the first flange and the second flange decrease continuously toward the distal end. (fig. 6, 9; col. 3, lines 48-56 details the taper of the flanges).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange taper taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
With respect to claim 8, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein each of the plurality of blades is identical to the first blade (clear from fig. 8).
With respect to claim 9, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the first flange and the second flange each form a 90° angle with the elongated body (para. 43 description of a U-shape would result in 90° angle flanges).
With respect to claim 10, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the upper and lower surfaces of the elongated body are flat surfaces (fig. 8 discloses flat upper and lower surfaces).
With respect to claim 11, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the drive assembly further comprises an arm assembly (52 in fig. 3) operably connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly (para. 33).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Beckerer, Jr. (US 4842482) and further in view of Schinkel (US 5249991).
With respect to claim 3, Chou in view of Beckerer disclose, the exercise bike of claim 2 (see above), wherein the first flange of the first blade extends along the first edge for an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction.
Neither Chout nor Beckerer disclose, wherein the first flange of each of the plurality of blades extends along the first edge for an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction.
Schinkel discloses, wherein the first flange of each of the plurality of blades extends along the first edge for an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 2 discloses, that the flanges 60 extend along the entire length of the blade in a U-shape; col. 3, lines 53-55).
Schinkel, Beckerer and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange extension shape of Schinkel in the exercise bike blades of Chou/ Beckerer. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional resistance in pedaling.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Dalebout (US 5000444).
With respect to claim 12, Chou discloses, an exercise bike (fig. 3) comprising:
a frame (30-60- in fig. 3) comprising a base having a first base member and a second base member (front and back 30 elements in fig. 3) configured to rest on a ground surface (unlabeled floor surface in fig. 3), the first base member and the second base member spaced from each other along a length of the frame and extending laterally with respect to the frame (fig. 3), a plurality of frame members extending upward from the first base member and the second base member (upright frame members in fig. 3), and a seat supported by the frame members and configured to support a user (40 in fig. 3);
a rotor (70 in fig. 3) supported by the frame, the rotor comprising a hub (unlabeled central element in fig. 8) supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis (axle, 85, denotes the axis in fig. 8) and a plurality of blades (72, 90-92 in fig. 8) connected to the hub, wherein the hub and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis (para. 43), and wherein each of the plurality of blades has a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward in a longitudinal direction from the hub to a distal end, with the elongated body being elongated along the longitudinal direction and having upper and lower surfaces and opposed first and second edges extending longitudinally between the proximal and distal ends (blades 72, 90-92 in fig. 8 have proximal ends connected to the hub (fig. 8) and an elongated body extending out towards, e.g. 30 in fig. 8), wherein each of the plurality of blades further comprises a first flange connected to the elongated body along the first edge and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and a second flange connected to the elongated body along the second edge and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces, and wherein the distal end of each of the plurality of blades is a free end (para. 47; “’U’ shaped cross-section 106 configurations are contemplated.” This shape description by Chou is identical to application’s shape description in para. 70 of a U-shape. Herein each side of the U-shape is seen to disclose the first and second flange as claimed);
a drive assembly (31 in fig. 3; 35-36 in fig. 8; para. 43) operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly (35, 36 in fig. 8; para. 43) supported by the frame and operably connected to the rotor (fig. 3 and 8), and a pedal assembly (31 in fig. 3; para. 43) comprising a first pedal connected to a first crank and a second pedal connected to a second crank (pedal and crank are shown and labeled as 31 in fig. 3), the first crank and the second crank of the pedal assembly being operably connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly by movement of the first and second pedals and the first and second cranks (para. 43), and an arm assembly (52 in fig. 3) comprising a first arm pivotably mounted on the frame, a first linkage operably connecting the first arm to the pedal assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly by pivoting of the first arm, a second arm pivotably mounted on the frame, and a second linkage operably connecting the second arm to the pedal assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly by pivoting of the second arm (para. 33 details pivoting use of the handlebars/arms to drive rotation);
a drive assembly (31 in fig. 3; 35-36 in fig. 8; para. 43) operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly (35, 36 in fig. 8; para. 43) supported by the frame (fig. 3) and operably connected to the rotor (fig. 8), and a pedal assembly (31 in fig. 3; para. 43) operably connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly (para. 43).
Chou does not expressly disclose a rotor cover.
Dalebout discloses, a rotor cover (94 in fig. 1) supported by the frame (e.g. 32 148 in fig. 1) and comprising a cage (94 in fig. 1; col. 6, lines 30-32) covering the rotor (80 in fig. 1), such that the rotor is configured to rotate within the cage (fig. 1).
Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the cover of Dalebout on the exercise bike of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide user safety (Dalebout; col. 6, lines 32-34).
With respect to claim 18, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the upper and lower surfaces of the elongated body are flat surfaces (fig. 8 discloses flat upper and lower surfaces).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Dalebout (US 5000444) and further in view of Schinkel (US 5249991).
With respect to claim 13, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Neither Chou nor Dalebout disclose, wherein the first flange of each of the plurality of blades extends along the first edge for an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction.
Schinkel discloses, wherein the first flange of each of the plurality of blades extends along the first edge for an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 2 discloses, that the flanges 60 extend along the entire length of the blade in a U-shape; col. 3, lines 53-55).
Schinkel, Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange extension shape of Schinkel in the exercise bike blades of Chou/Dalebout. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional resistance in pedaling.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Dalebout (US 5000444) and further in view of Beckerer (US 4842482).
With respect to claim 14, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Neither Chour or Dalebout disclose, wherein the first flange of each of the plurality of blades extends along the first edge for less than an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction, and the second flange extends along the second edge for less than an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction.
Beckerer discloses wherein a first flange (18b in fig. 6) of a blade (14b in fig. 6) extends along the first edge (left edge in fig. 6) for less than an entire length of the first edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 9; col. 3, lines 50-56), and a second flange (20b in fig. 6) extends along the second edge (right edge in fig. 6) for less than an entire length of the second edge in the longitudinal direction (fig. 9; col. 3, lines 50-56).
Beckerer, Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange extension shape of Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou/Dalebout. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
With respect to claim 15, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Neither Chou or Dalebout disclose, wherein each of the plurality of blades further comprises a third flange extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and located between the first edge and the second edge.
Beckerer discloses wherein a blade further comprises a first (18a in fig. 4), second (20a in fig. 4) and a third flange (30 in fig. 4) extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces and located between the first edge and the second edge (fig. 5).
Beckerer, Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the third flange taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou/ Dalebout. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide added stiffness to the blade (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 27-29).
With respect to claim 16, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Neither Chou or Dalebout disclose, wherein the first flange and the second flange of each of the plurality of blades have heights that are greater toward the proximal end and smaller toward the distal end.
Beckerer discloses wherein the first flange and the second flange of each of the plurality of blades have heights that are greater toward the proximal end and smaller toward the distal end (fig. 6, 9; col. 3, lines 48-56 details the taper of the flanges).
Beckerer, Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange taper taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou/ Dalebout. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
With respect to claim 17, Chou in view of Dalebout discloses, the exercise bike of claim 12 (see above).
Neither Chour or Dalebout disclose, wherein the heights of the first flange and the second flange decrease continuously toward the distal end.
Beckerer discloses wherein the heights of the first flange and the second flange decrease continuously toward the distal end (fig. 6, 9; col. 3, lines 48-56 details the taper of the flanges).
Beckerer, Dalebout and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the flange taper taught by Beckerer in the exercise bike blades of Chou/ Dalebout. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the weight of the blade with little sacrifice in the scoop effect (Beckerer; col. 3, lines 57-60).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2017/0274238) in view of Chang (US 4962925).
With respect to claim 19, Chou discloses, an exercise bike comprising:
a frame (30-60 in fig. 3) configured to rest on a ground surface (unlabeled but is the surface underneath 30 in fig. 3) and having a seat (40 in fig. 3) configured to support a user;
a rotor (70 in fig. 3) supported by the frame (frame element 32 in fig. 5 details how the frame supports rotor 70), the rotor comprising a hub (34 in fig. 8) supported by the frame for rotation on a first axis (85 denotes the axle around which the rotor and all its associated components rotate) and a plurality of blades (72, 90-92 in fig. 8) connected to the hub (fig. 8; para. 42), wherein the hub and the plurality of blades are configured to rotate together about the first axis (para. 42), wherein the hub comprises first circular plate (34 in fig. 8) and a cylindrical center body (unlabeled central part in fig. 8) extending axially between the first circular plate (fig. 8), the center body having a smaller diameter than the first circular plate (fig. 8), and wherein the plurality of blades includes a first blade having a proximal end connected to the hub and an elongated body extending outward from the hub in a longitudinal direction to a distal end (blades 72, 90-92 in fig. 8 have proximal ends connected to the hub (fig. 8) and an elongated body extending out towards, e.g. 30 in fig. 8), the elongated body having first and second elongated sides extending between the proximal and distal ends and a proximal edge extending transverse to the longitudinal direction between the first and second elongated sides at the proximal end (fig. 8),
and wherein the first blade further comprises a first extension (portion of 72 in fig. 9A with connection holes) extending outward in the longitudinal direction from the proximal end of the elongated body at the first elongated side and a second extension extending outward in the longitudinal direction from the proximal end of the elongated body at the second elongated side, and wherein the first extension is connected to the first circular plate of the hub (91 in fig. 9a, shows the connection of the extension portion of 72 to the first circular plate of the hub 34.) and the second extension is connected to the second circular plate of the hub to connect the first blade to the hub, such that the proximal edge extends between the first extension and the second extension and is spaced from the center body of the hub between the first and second extensions; and
a drive assembly (31 in fig. 3; 35-36 in fig. 8; para. 43) operably connected to the rotor to drive rotation of the rotor, wherein the drive assembly comprises a pulley assembly (35, 36 in fig. 8; para. 43) supported by the frame (fig. 3) operably connected to the rotor (fig. 8), and a pedal assembly (31 in fig. 3; para. 43) operably connected to the pulley assembly to drive rotation of the rotor through the pulley assembly (para. 43).
Chou does not expressly disclose a second circular plate connected to a second extension.
Chang discloses wherein the hub comprises first and second circular plates and a cylindrical center body extending axially between the first and second circular plates, the center body having a smaller diameter than the first and second circular plates (fig. 1; annotated below to denote the plates and center body), and wherein the first extension is connected to the first circular plate of the hub and the second extension is connected to the second circular plate of the hub to connect the first blade to the hub, such that the proximal edge extends between the first extension and the second extension and is spaced from the center body of the hub between the first and second extensions (also shown in fig. 1 how first and second spoke/blade/extensions are connected to both first and second plates).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang and Chou are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the second hub and extension as taught by Chang on the hub and blades of the exercise bike of Chou. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more secure connection between the blades and the hub.
With respect to claim 20, Chou in view of Chang discloses, the exercise bike of claim 19 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the first blade is formed as a single integral piece (72 is shown in fig. 8 as a single integral piece; also note MPEP 2144.04.V.B which notes that integration into singular pieces is often a matter of obvious engineering choice), and wherein each of the plurality of blades is identical to the first blade (fig. 8).
With respect to claim 21, Chou in view of Chang discloses, the exercise bike of claim 19 (see above).
Chou further discloses, wherein the first blade further comprises a first flange connected to the elongated body along the first elongated side of the first blade and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to upper and lower surfaces of the elongated body of the first blade and a second flange connected to the elongated body along the second elongated side of the first blade and extending downward from the elongated body transverse to the upper and lower surfaces (para. 47; “’U’ shaped cross-section 106 configurations are contemplated.” This shape description by Chou is identical to application’s shape description in para. 70 of a U-shape. Herein each side of the U-shape is seen to disclose the first and second flange as claimed);
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 2-21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,155,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
Claim 19-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37-41 of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
Claim 2-21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by, or obvious over, the patent claims.
Claim 2-21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the present claims are all recited by the patent claims. The patent claims therefore anticipate the present claims.
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 William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alex Beck can be reached on 571-272-3750. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights