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
Information Disclosure Statement
The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2024, and June 15, 2026, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3, 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrases, “(710, 721a, 721b)”, “(722a)”, “(722b)”, “(t2)”, “(710)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by these numbers as there is no Figure referred to in instant claim 1.
In claim 2, the phrases, “(620)”, “(412)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by these numbers as there is no Figure referred to in instant claim 2.
In claim 3, the phrase, “(620)” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by this number as there is no Figure referred to in instant claim 3.
In claim 5, the phrase, “second sloped portion is substantially straight” is indefinite. It is unclear if the second sloped portion is straight or not.
Double Patenting
4. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,243,564. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,243,564 and U.S. Patent No. 11,243,564 encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention.
All of the remaining instant claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,243,564.
6. Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,238. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,238 and U.S. Patent No. 11,886,238 encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention.
All of the remaining instant claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,238.
7. Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites similar subject matter as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,902 and U.S. Patent No. 12,101,902 encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention.
All of the remaining instant claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,101,902.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights