Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In this case, Examiner has considered and cited the references mentioned in paragraph [051] of the Specification.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [051] the trade name “LINQ” is set forth and then paragraph [062] references both “LINQ” and “LING”. It seems “LING” should be “LINQ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coupling mechanism being found on at least one of the plurality of the internal walls of the vehicle, as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings only appear to show the coupling mechanism (55/65) being either on the floor (51) or on the adapter (30/40), never on the walls (52).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because the limitation “the seat of a vehicle” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 4 is objected to because the limitation “the pair of work surfaces of the adaptor” lacks proper antecedent basis. It seems claim 4 should depend from claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 12 is objected to because the limitation “the outer dimension” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 14 is objected to because the limitation “the seat of a vehicle” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and “adapter” should be “adaptor” in order to conform with the rest of the application. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 18 is objected to because the limitation “the seat of a vehicle” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and “adapter” should be “adaptor” in order to conform with the rest of the application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 recites the second article being configured to be secured via the at least one coupling mechanism. Claim 20 depends from claim 18 where claim 18 has already established that the first article is secured to the at least one coupling mechanism and the second article overlaps the first article. As such, the claims effectively recite each of the first and second articles being connected to the coupling mechanism at the same time. This doesn’t seem to be supported in the originally filed disclosure. It seems that only one article is secured to the coupling mechanism at a given time. The latter part of claim 20 “or to a coupling mechanism on the first article” does seem to be supported. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
11. Claims 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 firsts recites “a coupling mechanism” in line 5 and then recites “at least one coupling mechanism” in line 6. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same coupling mechanism or different coupling mechanisms. The confusion is further compounded when claims 2 and 3 also further recites “at least one coupling mechanism”. Are these now third and fourth coupling mechanisms or still the same one? For the purpose of examination, prior art satisfying any of these scenarios will be considered sufficient.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “a third article attaches to the vehicle”. It is not clear if the third article is being claimed in combination or not. Other claims use functional language such as “configured to releasably couple” (see claim 1) or positive recitations such as “is interconnected” (see claim 6). It is unclear if the language “attaches to” is functional language or a positive recitation. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed the third article is being claimed in combination.
Claim 18 recites “the second article having a portion overlapping the first article when the adapter is removed from the vehicle.” The scope of this is unclear. How is the second article overlapping anything on the vehicle, including the first article, when it and the adapter to which it is secured are removed from the vehicle? Perhaps this is meant to say “when the adapter is secured to the vehicle”? For the purpose of examination, any second article overlapping a portion of a first article at any point in time will be considered sufficient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 2, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 9,663,172 B2).
Regarding claim 1, to the degree the claim is understood, Taylor discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (400) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (10, see Figure 15, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat (26) of a vehicle, wherein the floor is located rearward of the seat (see Figure 15, seat being claimed in combination); and a coupling mechanism (the “mounting” mechanism for 252 as mentioned in col. 5 line 53 where bolts seem to be shown in Figure 15 - or - 252 itself - or - 252 in combination with 246 - or - 382, all different interpretations that work) configured to releasably couple a first article thereto (first article not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to releasably couple”), wherein at least one coupling mechanism is found on either the floor, at least one of the plurality of walls, an adaptor configured to be interconnected to the vehicle, a work surface of the adaptor, or another article already disposed in the drop-down space (Figure 16 shows the “mounting” bolts as well as coupling mechanism 252 being found on the floor and Figures 15-16 show the coupling mechanism 382 being found on an adaptor 252, depending on how Taylor is interpreted).
Regarding claim 2, to the degree the claim is understood, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (“mounting” bolts or 252) is disposed on the floor (see Figure 16).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein the adaptor (252/246) comprises at least one other coupling mechanism (246) for stably connecting a second article (240 - second article not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for stably connecting) to the vehicle above the first article (244 - see Figures 1, 13, and 16).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein the first article (36) is interconnected to the at least one coupling mechanism on the floor (see Figure 16, first article now being claimed in combination due to the positive recitation “is interconnected to”).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first article (240 or 244 or 246) is disposed above the drop-down space (see Figures 1, 13, and 16).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 7, wherein the first article (240 or 244 or 246) is disposed above a second article (290/310) in the drop-down space.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 7, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (382) is disposed on the work surface (upper surface) of the adaptor (252, see Figures 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 8, wherein the first article (246) is interconnected to the second article (290/310) via at least one coupling mechanism (310) on the second article (see Figure 14).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 7, wherein the first article (240) is disposed above the drop-down space (see Figure 1) via the work surface of the adaptor (to which 240 is attached ultimately attached).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 6, wherein the first article (36) has an outer dimension (outer height) that extends beyond the outer dimension (outer height) formed by the plurality of walls (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein the first article is releasably couplable to either the floor, the plurality of walls, or the floor and the adaptor. The first article is still not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is releasably couplable”. Nevertheless, Taylor shows the first article (36) releasably couplable to the floor (via the adaptor / coupling mechanism 252/382).
Regarding claim 14, Taylor discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (400) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (10, see Figure 15, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat (26) of a vehicle (see Figures 15-16); at least one coupling mechanism (252 or 382) coupled to the floor, optionally, a removable adapter secured to the vehicle and partially surrounding the drop down space, the removable adaptor configured to secure a second article while a first article is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism, the second article having a portion overlapping the first article when the adapter is removed from the vehicle. Taylor need not show anything set forth in the claim following the word “optionally” in order to anticipate the claim as currently presented.
Regarding claim 15, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 14, wherein the first article (296, see Figure 13, first article now being claimed in combination due to the positive recitation “is secured within”) is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism and a third article (246) is secured to the first article and has a portion overlapping the first article (see Figure 14).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 15, wherein the third article (246) covers the entirety of the first article (296) when viewed from the top (see Figure 14).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 14, wherein a third article (82) attaches to the vehicle independent of the first article (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Taylor discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (400) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (10, see Figure 15, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat of a vehicle (see Figures 15-16); at least one coupling mechanism (252 or 382) coupled to the floor, a removable adapter (44) secured to the vehicle and partially surrounding the drop down space (on the left or right side thereof, see Figure 1), the removable adaptor configured to secure a second article (second article not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to secure”) while a first article (also not being claimed in combination) is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism, the second article having a portion overlapping the first article when the adapter is removed from the vehicle. There is no structure in Taylor that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adaptor 44 such that the second article overlaps the first article 36.
Regarding claim 19, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 18, wherein the second article covers the entirety of the first article when viewed from the top. The second article is still not being claimed in combination. There is no structure in Taylor that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adaptor 44 such that the second article covers the entirety of the first article 36 when viewed from the top, perhaps a seat cover.
Regarding claim 20, Taylor discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 18, wherein the second article is configured to be secured via the at least one coupling mechanism or to a coupling mechanism on the first article. The second article is still not being claimed in combination. There is no structure in Taylor that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adapter (44) where the second article itself has structure so as to also be capable of mounting to the coupling mechanism, perhaps at a different point in time than when it is mounted to the adapter.
15. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puska (US 6,461,095 B1).
Regarding claim 1, to the degree the claim is understood, Puska discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (plainly visible drop down space between the wheel wells and behind and below the seat, see Figures) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (ATV, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat of a vehicle, wherein the floor is located rearward of the seat (see Figures); and a coupling mechanism (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65) configured to releasably couple a first article thereto (first article not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to releasably couple”), wherein at least one coupling mechanism is found on either the floor (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65), at least one of the plurality of walls, an adaptor configured to be interconnected to the vehicle, a work surface of the adaptor, or another article already disposed in the drop-down space.
Regarding claim 2, to the degree the claim is understood, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein at least one coupling mechanism is disposed on the floor (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 3, to the degree the claim is understood, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (48 or 49 or 13) is found on the adaptor (10), the adaptor comprising: a forward bracket body (46) configured to couple the adaptor to the vehicle proximate a first wall (via 12); a rearward bracket body (47) configured to couple the adaptor to the vehicle proximate a second wall (via 12), the first wall being opposite to the second wall; and a pair of work surfaces (48,49) interconnecting the forward bracket body to the rearward bracket body, wherein the forward bracket body, the rearward bracket body, and the pair of work surfaces circumscribe at least a portion of the drop-down space (see Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein one of the pair of work surfaces (48,49) comprises the at least one coupling mechanism (48,49 - there is no structure in Puska that would physically prevent a user from somehow coupling an accessory or article to these members 48,49).
Regarding claim 5, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein the adaptor (10) comprises at least one other coupling mechanism (48 or 49) for stably connecting a second article (second article not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for stably connecting and there is no structure in Puska that would physically prevent a user from somehow coupling an accessory or article to these members 48,49) to the vehicle above the first article.
Regarding claim 6, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 2, wherein the first article (10) is interconnected to the at least one coupling mechanism (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65) on the floor (first article now being claimed in combination due to the positive recitation “is interconnected to”).
Regarding claim 7, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the first article (10) is disposed above the drop-down space (see Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 7, wherein the first article (10) is disposed above a second article (one of 12) in the drop-down space.
Regarding claim 9, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 7, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (front bent sections proximate numbers 44 and 45 in Figures 1 and 5) is disposed on (the ends of) the work surface (48,49) of the adaptor (10).
Regarding claim 12, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 6, wherein the first article (10) has an outer dimension that extends beyond the outer dimension formed by the plurality of walls (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of Claim 1, wherein the first article is releasably couplable to either the floor, the plurality of walls, or the floor and the adaptor. The first article is still not being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is releasably couplable”. Nevertheless, Puska shows the first article (10) releasably couplable to the floor (via the conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65, where any fastener can be removed, even if by force).
Regarding claim 14, Puska discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (plainly visible drop down space between the wheel wells and behind and below the seat, see Figures) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (ATV, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat of a vehicle (see Figures); at least one coupling mechanism (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65) coupled to the floor, optionally, a removable adapter secured to the vehicle and partially surrounding the drop down space, the removable adaptor configured to secure a second article while a first article is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism, the second article having a portion overlapping the first article when the adapter is removed from the vehicle. Puska need not show anything set forth in the claim following the word “optionally” in order to anticipate the claim as currently presented.
Regarding claim 15, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 14, wherein the first article (12, first article now being claimed in combination due to the positive recitation “is secured within”) is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism and a third article (10/11) is secured to the first article and has a portion overlapping the first article (see Figures).
Regarding claim 16, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 15, wherein the third article (10/11) covers the entirety of the first article (12) when viewed from the top (see Figures).
Regarding claim 17, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 14, wherein a third article (26) attaches to the vehicle independent of the first article (see Figures).
Regarding claim 18, Puska discloses a recreational vehicle storage system, comprising: a drop-down space (plainly visible drop down space between the wheel wells and behind and below the seat, see Figures) defined by a plurality of walls internal of the vehicle (ATV, vehicle being claimed in combination) and a floor that is located below an uppermost surface of the seat of a vehicle (see Figures); at least one coupling mechanism (conventional fastener between 12 and floor, see col. 3 lines 64-65) coupled to the floor, a removable adapter (10) secured to the vehicle and partially surrounding the drop down space (46/47/48/49 surround the drop-down space, see Figures), the removable adaptor configured to secure a second article (second article not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “configured to secure”) while a first article (also not being claimed in combination) is secured within the drop-down space to the at least one coupling mechanism, the second article having a portion overlapping the first article when the adapter is removed from the vehicle. There is no structure in Puska that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adaptor 10 such that the second article overlaps a first article (perhaps 12).
Regarding claim 19, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 18, wherein the second article covers the entirety of the first article when viewed from the top. The second article is still not being claimed in combination. There is no structure in Puska that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adaptor 10 such that the second article covers the entirety of the first article (perhaps 12) when viewed from the top.
Regarding claim 20, Puska discloses the recreational vehicle storage system of claim 18, wherein the second article is configured to be secured via the at least one coupling mechanism or to a coupling mechanism on the first article. The second article is still not being claimed in combination. There is no structure in Puska that would physically prevent a user from somehow securing a second article to the removable adapter where the second article itself has structure so as to also be capable of mounting to the coupling mechanism, perhaps at a different point in time than when it is mounted to the adapter.
Double Patenting
16. 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).
17. 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).
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/823,062. Regarding claims 1-15, 17, 18, and 20 , although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed structure or equivalents thereof are also clearly recited in the copending claims. While the present claims recite the floor being located rearward of a vehicle seat and the copending claims recite the floor being located forward of a steering shaft, neither set of claims establishes any frame of reference to distinguish front from back. Depending on the frame of reference chosen, a floor located rearward of a seat can also be considered forward of a steering column, and vice versa. Regarding claims 16 and 19, the copending claims fail to recite sizes of the additional articles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have sized the additional articles of the copending claims as presently claimed since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 3/20/26