CTNF 18/830,287 CTNF 83207 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application is acknowledged. 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 09/10/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8792858 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 1-8 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8792858 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 1-8 are anticipated by claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8792858 . Therefore, the current claims 1-8 obviously encompass the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 8792858 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant independent claims are generic to the claimed invention of claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8792858, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent or co-pending application . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9276961 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 1-8 of the current application are similar and included in claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 9276961 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 1-8 are anticipated by claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9276961 . Therefore, the current claims 1-8 obviously encompass the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 9276961 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant independent claims are generic to the claimed invention of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9276961, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent or co-pending application . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12120513 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, by comparing the claims, all the limitations of claims 1-8 of the current application are similar and included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12120513 with only some obvious wording or terminology variations. That is, claims 1-8 are anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12120513 . Therefore, the current claims 1-8 obviously encompass the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 12120513 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant independent claims are generic to the claimed invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12120513, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent or co-pending application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAHYAR KASRAIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm. 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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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. /ALLAHYAR KASRAIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/830,287 Page 2 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/830,287 Page 3 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/830,287 Page 5 Art Unit: 2642
Prosecution Insights