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
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 21, 25, 27, 30-33, 36, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12075319 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 9 Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 3. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 31 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2, 3. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 9. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 2-4. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 40 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21, 25, 30-33, 36, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11706594 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 10. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 31 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7, 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 10. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 10. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 40 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11356821 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 23 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 24 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12, 13. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 28 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6, 9, 12-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6, 9, 12-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 31 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 34 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 35 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 37 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 38 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 9, 15 Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 39 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 9, 15. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 40 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 10785619 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 23 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 24 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 19. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12, 13. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 28 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 9, 12-15. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 9, 12-15. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 31 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 34 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 35 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 37 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 38 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 9, 15. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 39 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 9, 15. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 40 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 10327120 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 4. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 23 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 24 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7, 18. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 11. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 28 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 10-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8, 10-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 30 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 31 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 3, 4. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 34 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 35 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 37 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 5. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 38 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 8, 10-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 39 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 8, 10-14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 40 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21-29 and 32-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 10021532 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 23 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 24 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 10. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 2. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11, 14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 28 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11, 13-17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11, 13-17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 34 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 35 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 2, 14. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 37 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 7. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 38 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11, 13-17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 39 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 11, 13-17. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claims 21-29 and 32-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20. of U.S. Patent No. US 9749812 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 22 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 23 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 24 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 12. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 25 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 2. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 26 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 27 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13, 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 28 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13, 16, 17, 19, 20. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 29 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13, 16, 17, 19, 20. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 32 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 33 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1-6. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 34 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 35 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 36 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 2, 16. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 37 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 1, 8. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 38 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13, 16, 17, 19, 20. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Claim 39 of the instant application is substantively the same and/or readily derivable from patent claim(s) 13, 16, 17, 19, 20. Any differences between the instant claim and those of the patent are merely functions and/or steps that are customarily performed in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights