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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the antiseptic" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the disinfectant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lafe (US 2011/0054377).
Regarding Claim 1, Lafe discloses a nasal swab apparatus (Figs. 1-3) for cleaning, washing, decolonizing, prepping and/or sterilizing of human nose nasal vestibules (¶ [0001-0010, 0035]), the nasal swab apparatus comprising:
a body (shafts 10, 12, Figs. 1-3) extending along a longitudinal axis (depth dimension 22, Fig. 2);
at least one prong (clip 30, Fig. 3) extending parallel to or along the longitudinal axis of the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3; the clip has at least some extension both parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis), the at least one prong (30, Fig. 3) having an attachment end connected to the body (10, 12, Fig. 3) and an opposite free end (¶ [0038] and seen in Fig. 3);
a swab (bud 14, Figs. 1-3) attached to the free end of the at least one prong (30, Fig. 3; ¶ [0038]);
a nasal guide (stop 16, Figs. 1-3) being a nasal columellar guide or a nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely one stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other will contact the nasal alar), the nasal guide (16, Figs. 1-3) being connected to the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3) or to the at least one prong (30, Fig. 3; the stop 16 is connected to both the body and the prong via the bud as a whole); and
wherein the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3) is configured to be engaged by a human hand to position the swab (14, Figs. 1-3) into a selected one of the nasal vestibules of a human nose such that the nasal guide (16, Figs. 1-3) contacts an exterior region of the nose to limit an insertion depth of the swab (14, Figs. 1-3; ¶ [0007-0010]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lafe discloses the at least one prong (30, Fig. 3) is a first prong (left 30, Fig. 3) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis (22, Fig. 2) of the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3), including a second prong (right 30, Fig. 3) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis (22, Fig. 2) of the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3), the second prong (right 30, Fig. 3) having an attachment end connected to the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3) and a free end (as seen in Fig. 3), the second prong (right 30, Fig. 3) being spaced a predetermined distance from the first prong (left 30, Fig. 3; ¶ [0024-0025]), and including another swab (14, Figs. 1-3) attached to the free end of the second prong (right 30, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Lafe discloses the nasal guide (16, Figs. 1-3) is the nasal columellar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion), that extends between the first and second prongs (30, Fig. 3) and is spaced from the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3; Figs. 4 and 5 show an enlarged view of the buds which show that some of the stop extends inwardly past the connection to the arms/clips, and therefore the nasal guide extends between the first and second prongs and is spaced from the body).
Regarding Claim 5, Lafe discloses the nasal guide (16, Figs. 1-3) is the nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion) that either extends from the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3) or extends from one of the first or second prongs (30, Fig. 3; the stop 16 extends from both the body and the prongs via the bud 14).
Regarding Claim 6, Lafe discloses the nasal guide (16, Figs. 1-3) is the nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion) that extends from the at least one prong (30, Fig. 3; the stop 16 extends from both the prongs via the bud 14).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Lafe discloses the body (10, 12, Figs. 1-3) is constructed from biodegradable paper (¶ [0024-0025]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lafe discloses the swab (14, Figs. 1-3) is adapted to hold a quantity of an antiseptic or a disinfectant and to release the antiseptic or the disinfectant upon contact with a surface in the nasal vestibule of the human nose (¶ [0023, 0035]; since the buds are absorbent, they are fully capable of holding a quantity of an antiseptic or disinfectant and then releasing it into the nose upon contact of the bud with the surface of the nose).
Regarding Claim 13, Lafe discloses the swab (14, Figs. 1-3) is made of an absorbent material including cotton (¶ [0023, 0035]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadam et al (US 2011/0270290).
Regarding Claim 1, Nadam discloses a nasal swab apparatus (2, Fig. 1) for cleaning, washing, decolonizing, prepping, and/or sterilizing of human nose nasal vestibules (¶ [0008-0020]; the device is fully capable of being used with the human nose), the nasal swab apparatus (2, Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (thimble 4, Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis,
at least one prong (extension head 10, Fig. 1) extending parallel to or along the longitudinal axis of the body (4, Fig. 1), the at least one prong (10, Fig. 1) having an attachment end connected to the body and an opposite free end (as seen in Fig. 2);
a swab (cotton wad 6, Fig. 1) attached to the free end of the at least one prong (10, Fig. 2);
a nasal guide (expansion 50, Fig. 1) being a nasal columellar guide or a nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar), the nasal guide (50, Fig. 1) being connected to the body (4, Fig. 1) or to the at least one prong (10, Fig. 1); and
wherein the body (4, Fig. 1) is configured to be engaged by a human hand to position the swab (6, Fig. 1) into a selected one of the nasal vestibules of a human nose such that the nasal guide (50, Fig. 1) contacts an exterior region of the nose to limit an insertion depth of the swab (6, Fig. 1; ¶ [0002-0006, 0071; the device is fully capable of being used with the nose instead of the ear).
Regarding Claim 3, Nadam discloses the at least one prong (10, Fig. 10) is a first prong (top 10, Fig. 10) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body (20, Fig. 10), including a second prong (bottom 10, Fig. 10) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body (20, Fig. 10), the second prong (bottom 10, Fig. 10) having an attachment end connected to the body (20, Fig. 10) and a free end, the second prong (bottom 10, Fig. 10) being spaced a predetermined distance from the first prong (top 10, Fig. 10), and including another swab (6, Fig. 10) attached to the free end of the second prong (bottom 10, Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Nadam discloses the nasal guide (50, Fig. 1) is the nasal columellar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar) that is formed as a portion of an attachment edge of the body (20, Fig. 10) between where the first and second prongs (10, Fig. 10) are connected to the body (20, Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Nadam discloses the nasal guide (50, Fig. 1) is the nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar) that extends from the body (4, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Nadam discloses the nasal guide (50, Fig. 1) is the nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar) that extends from the at least one prong (10, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Nadam discloses the swab (6, Figs. 1) is adapted to hold a quantity of an antiseptic or a disinfectant and to release the antiseptic or the disinfectant upon contact with a surface in the nasal vestibule of the human nose (¶ [0054] since the swabs are cotton, they are absorbent and therefore they are fully capable of holding a quantity of an antiseptic or disinfectant and then releasing it into the nose upon contact of the swab with the surface of the nose).
Regarding Claim 12, Nadam discloses an adjustment mechanism (slots 42, Fig. 4) positioned in the at least one prong (10, Fig. 4) and enabling selective adjustment of the at least one prong (10, Fig. 4) in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the body (4, Fig. 1; ¶ [0066]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nadam discloses the swab (6, Fig. 1) is made of an absorbent material including cotton (¶ [0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nadam discloses the body (4, Fig. 1) is formed as a finger cap adapted to be removably retained on an end of a human finger (¶ [0054-0055]).
Regarding Claim 17, Nadam discloses the body (4, Fig. 1) has a closed end and either the prong (10, Fig. 1) is formed integral with the closed end (as seen in Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fassbind (US 4902275).
Regarding Claim 1, Fassbind discloses a nasal swab apparatus (Fig. 1) for cleaning, washing, decolonizing, prepping, and/or sterilizing of human nose nasal vestibules (Col. 1 lines 14-20), the nasal swab apparatus comprising:
a body (portion of rod 1 outside of the pledget, Fig. 1) extending along a longitudinal axis;
at least one prong (portion of rod 1 within the pledget 2, Fig. 1) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body (portion of rod 1 outside of the pledget, Fig. 1), the at least one prong (potion of rod 1 within the pledget 2, Fig. 1) having an attachment end connected to the body (portion of rod 1 outside of the pledget, Fig. 1) and an opposite free end;
a swab (pledge 2, Fig. 1) attached to the free end of the at least one prong (portion of rod 1 within the pledget 2, Fig. 1);
a nasal guide (shoulder 5, Fig. 1) being a nasal columellar guide or a nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar), the nasal guide (5, Fig. 1) being connected to the body (portion of rod 1 outside the pledget 2, Fig. 1) or to the at least one prong (portion of rod 1 within the pledget 2, Fig. 1); and
wherein the body (portion of rod 1 outside the pledget 2, Fig. 1) is configured to be engaged by a human hand to position the swab into a selected one of the nasal vestibules of a human nose such that the nasal guide (5, Fig. 1) contacts an exterior region of the nose to limit an insertion depth of the swab (2, Fig. 1; Col. 1 lines 14-20, Col. 2 line 61 – Col. 3 line 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Fassbind discloses the nasal guide (5, Fig. 1) is the nasal alar guide (the stop is capable of coming into contact with either the nasal columella or the nasal alar depending on the orientation of the device during insertion – most likely half of the stop will come into contact with the nasal columella and the other half will contact the nasal alar) that extends from the at least one prong (portion of rod 1 within the pledget 2, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Fassbind discloses the swab (2, Figs. 1) is adapted to hold a quantity of an antiseptic or a disinfectant and to release the antiseptic or the disinfectant upon contact with a surface in the nasal vestibule of the human nose (Col. 2 lines 34-42; since the swab is cotton, it is absorbent and therefore is fully capable of holding a quantity of an antiseptic or disinfectant and then releasing it into the nose upon contact of the swab with the surface of the nose).
Regarding Claim 13, Fassbind discloses the swab (2, Fig. 1) is made of an absorbent material including cotton (Col. 2 lines 34-42).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafe (US 2011/0054377) in view of Crespo (US 2003/0135228); and Nadam et al (US 2011/0270290) in view of Crespo (US 2003/0135228).
Regarding Claim 2, Lafe and Nadam both disclose nasal swab apparatuses according to Claim 1, as set forth above.
Neither of Lafe or Nadam disclose wherein the body includes a receptacle and the attachment end of the at least one prong is fixed in the receptacle or is removably retained in the receptacle.
Crespo teaches a body cleaning swab, thus being in the same field of endeavor, wherein the body (12, Figs. 1-2) includes a receptacle (16, Figs. 1-2) and the attachment end of at least one prong (68, Figs. 1-2) is fixed in the receptacle (16, Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0017]). This provides a secure attachment mechanism for the prong to the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of either Lafe or Nadam to have the body include a receptacle and the attachment end of the at least one prong is fixed in the receptacle, as taught by Crespo, who indicates that this construction was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill would find it obvious to utilize this method of attaching the prong to the body as it is a well known method of securing attaching swab heads to the swab body, as demonstrated by Crespo.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafe (US 2011/0054377) in view of Silverstein (US 2011/0066172); Nadam et al (US 2011/0270290) in view of Silverstein (US 2011/0066172); and Fassbind (US 4902275) in view of Silverstein (US 2011/0066172).
Regarding Claim 10, Lafe, Nadam, and Fassbind all disclose nasal swab apparatuses according to Claim 9, as set forth above.
None of Lafe, Nadam, or Fassbind disclose a frangible ampoule containing the antiseptic or the disinfectant, the frangible ampule being positioned in the at least one prong or in the body, wherein when the frangible ampule is broken, the antiseptic or the disinfectant is delivered to the swab.
Silverstein teaches a body cleaning swab, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a frangible ampule (58, Fig. 8) containing antiseptic or disinfectant (¶ [0056, 0065-0068]) being positioned in the body (12, Fig. 8), wherein when the frangible ampule (58, Fig. 8) is broken, the antiseptic or the disinfectant is delivered to the swab (22, Fig. 8; ¶ [0056]). This is useful when the antiseptics/disinfectants delivered to the body need to be mixed just prior to use (¶ [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the devices of any one of Lafe, Nadam, and Fassbind to include a frangible ampule containing the antiseptic or the disinfectant, the frangible ampule being positioned in the at least one prong or on the body, wherein when the frangible ampule is broken, the antiseptic or the disinfectant is delivered to the swab, as taught by Silverstein, to allow the antiseptic/disinfectant to be mixed just prior to use, ensuring efficacy of the solution (as motivated by Silverstein ¶ [0056]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafe (US 2011/0054377) in view of Kim (US 2021/0330515); Nadam et al (US 2011/0270290) in view of Kim (US 2021/0330515); and Fassbind (US 4902275) in view of Kim (US 2021/0330515).
Regarding Claim 11, Lafe, Nadam, and Fassbind all disclose nasal swab apparatuses according to Claim 1, as set forth above.
None of Lafe, Nadam, or Fassbind disclose an adjustment mechanism positioned in the body and enabling selective adjustment of the body in a direction of the longitudinal axis.
Kim teaches a body cleaning swab, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an adjustment mechanism (module 300, Fig. 4) positioned in the body (housing 100 and rod 200, Fig. 4) and enabling selective adjustment of the body (housing 100 and rod 200, Fig. 4) in a direction of the longitudinal axis (as seen in Fig. 4; ¶ [0021]). This allows the length of the body to change (¶ [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of any one of Lafe, Nadam, and Fassbind to include an adjustment mechanism positioned in the body and enabling selective adjustment of the body in a direction of the longitudinal axis, as taught by Kim, to allow the length of the body to change based on input from the user (as motivated by Kim ¶ [0021]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fassbind (US 4902275) in view of Britvan (US 10639214).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Fassbind is silent whether the at least one prong is one of four prongs connected to the body, a first pair of the prongs extending in one direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body and another pair of the prongs extending in an opposite direction, wherein the prongs extending from the body form an X-shape or the prongs extending from the body at a 90-degree spacing.
Britvan teaches a swab cleaning device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with four separate applicator posts, the applicator posts extending from the body in an X-shape and at 90-degree spacing to form a first pair of prongs extending in one direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body and another pair of prongs extending in the opposite direction (as seen in Fig. 5) to provide a multi-functional swab that is safer for use and provides a gripping portion within the center of the device (Col. 2 lines 5-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Fassbind to have the at least one prong be one of four prongs connected to the body, a first pair of prongs extending in one direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body and another pair of the prongs extending in an opposite direction, wherein the prongs extending from the body form an X-shape or extend from the body at a 90-degree spacing, as taught by Britvan, to provide a safer swab with multiple uses (as motivated by Britvan Col. 2 lines 5-27).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafe (US 2011/0054377) in view of Hanifl et al (US 5378226); Nadam et al (US 2011/0270290) in view of Hanifl et al (US 5378226); and Fassbind (US 4902275) in view of Hanifl et al (US 5378226).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Lafe, Nadam, and Fassbind all disclose nasal swab apparatuses according to Claim 1, as set forth above.
None of Lafe, Nadam, or Fassbind disclose a nasal swab kit comprising the nasal swab apparatus according to Claim 1 and a sealed package enclosing the at least one nasal swab apparatus, the packing having an opening mechanism for accessing the at least one nasal swab apparatus, wherein the package is a pouch and the opening mechanism is a tear line extending adjacent to an edge of the pouch, and including a container of the antiseptic or the disinfectant enclosed in the package.
Hanifl teaches a medical swab kit (Col. 1 lines 11-15), thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the kit comprises at least one swab (14, Fig. 1) and a sealed package (bag 12, Fig. 1; Col. 2 lines 49-55) enclosing the at least one swab (14, Fig. 1), the package (12, Fig. 1) having an opening mechanism (perforation 20, Fig. 1) for accessing the at least one swab (14, Fig. 1; Col. 2 lines 56-64), wherein the package (12, Fig. 1) is a pouch (12, Fig. 1; Col. 2 lines 49-55) and the opening mechanism (20, Fig. 1) is a tear line (Col. 2 lines 56-64; the perforation can be considered a tear line) extending adjacent to an edge of the pouch (the perforation 20 is adjacent to the short, top edge of the pouch, as seen in Fig. 1), and including a container (pouch 16, Fig. 1) of the antiseptic or the disinfectant enclosed in the package (12, Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 14-18; the liquid within the pouch can be a hydrogen peroxide solution which can be considered an antiseptic). Packaging the swabs within a package allow the swabs to maintain sterility during shipping and storage (Col. 2 lines 49-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the swab of any one of Lafe, Nadam, or Fassbind to be included within a swab kit comprising the swab of Claim 1 and a sealed package enclosing the swab, the package having an opening mechanism for accessing the at least one swab, wherein the package is a pouch and the opening mechanism is a tear line extending adjacent to an edge of the pouch, and wherein the kit includes a container of the antiseptic or the disinfectant enclosed in the package, as taught by Hanifl, as this allows the swabs to maintain sterility during shipping and storage (as motivated by Hanifl Col. 2 lines 49-55).
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 1, 3, 9, 13, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/751,944 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims merely recite more limitations and are as such a species of the instant claim’s genus. Since it has been held that the species anticipates the genus, pending claims anticipate the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/605,418 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim merely recites more limitations and is as such a species of the instant claim’s genus. Since it has been held that the species anticipates the genus, the pending claim anticipates the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights