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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification discloses the microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis, currently the Specification cites the microorganism as “bacillus thuringiensis”. Microorganisms should be italicized and the genus capitalized to properly read “Bacillus thuringiensis”.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See paragraph (0013). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1-3, the claims contain the microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis, currently the claims cite the microorganism as “bacillus thuringiensis”. Microorganisms should be italicized and the genus capitalized to properly read “Bacillus thuringiensis”.
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.
Claims 3-6 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.
Claims 3-6 refer to “The pest control composition of one of claim 1 or any one of claim 1”. The claims are indefinite, in that the recitation of “of one of claim 1 or any one of claim 1” is unclear. It is noted that the claims were amended to correct multiple dependent claims; however, the term “of one of claim 1 or any one of claim 1 should be deleted and the claims should read, “The pest control composition of claim 1…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0761096 (IDS) supported by Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications.
Regarding claim 1, EP0761096 teaches a biopesticide composition comprising Bacillus thuringiensis, a polymer, and water (p. 2, lines 52-p. 3, lines 1-35, 47-50, p. 5, lines 28-35). The polymer is disclosed to be formed of monomers and include polyacrylic acids or ester or carboxy derivatives thereof, copolymers of styrene and maleic anhydride and derivatives thereof, and insoluble in water which is used as the carrier of the composition (p. 4, lines 36-47).
*Applicants specification teaches that “(0014) Exemplary monomers for use in the polymer include, but are not limited to, diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), 2-ethylehexyl acrylate (log P of 4.09), styrene (log P of 2.89), maleic anhydride (log P of 1.62), docosyl methacrylate (log P of 11.59), and combinations thereof.”
Therefore, the copolymers of EP096 would contain from 50-70 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of from 2-6, according to claims 1, 4, 5, when the copolymers are the disclosed styrene/maleic anhydride copolymer.
Regarding claim 2, the polymer is present in the composition in an amount of 0.5 wt%-about 25 wt% (p. 4, lines 55-56, p. 5, lines 58-p. 6, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, when looking to Ex. 1, composition C, for example, containing the polymer, B. thuringiensis and water; water is present in an amount of about 89.9% wt. of the total weight of the composition (p. 7). EP096 additionally teaches that the formulations are water dispersible and diluted in water before application and that the appropriate concentrations and dilutions in each case will depend on the nature of the pathogen to be controlled and the type of vegetation to be treated and will be ready apparent to those skilled in the art (p. 6, lines 47-50).
While the prior art reference does not teach the molecular weight of the polymer, i.e. 15,000 Daltons to 30,000 Daltons, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine the molecular weight of the styrene/maleic anhydride copolymer. It is known in the art that the MW of copolymers is dependent upon their molecular architecture, i.e. amount and arrangement of each monomer, and particularly the method of making the copolymer. For support see Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications. Therefore, methods of making polymers to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight for a particular use, is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0250908 (IDS).
EP908 teaches a pesticidal composition comprising B. thuringiensis (p.4, lines 30-48), a polymer and water.
Regarding claim 2, 4, 5, the polymer is disclosed to be copolymers of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid (p. 3, lines 38-54, specifically lines 49-54) present in the composition in amounts ranging from 5-99 wt% of the composition (p. 2, lines 45-50). The reference teaches the polymers 50MAA/50EA, 40MAA/60BA, 60MAA/40ST, 60MAA/40BD, 20AA/80EL, 50AA/50AM, 56MMA/20MAA/20EA, 56MMA/20MAA/24EA, wherein 50MAA/50EA represents a polymer having about 50% wt of MAA and 50%wt EA, for example (p. 10, Table 3). MAA-methacrylic acid, EA=ethyl acrylate, BA=butyl acrylate, ST=styrene, BD=butadiene, AA=acrylic acid, EL=ethylene, AM=acrylamide, MMA=methyl methacrylate.
*Applicants specification teaches that “(0014) Exemplary monomers for use in the polymer include, but are not limited to, diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), 2-ethylehexyl acrylate (log P of 4.09), styrene (log P of 2.89), maleic anhydride (log P of 1.62), docosyl methacrylate (log P of 11.59), and combinations thereof.”
Therefore, the copolymers of EP908 contain from 50-70 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of from 2-6, and 90 wt% or greater of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of 1 or greater, according to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, when the copolymers are the disclosed 50MAA/50EA, 40MAA/60BA, 60MAA/40ST, 60MAA/40BD, 56MMA/20MAA/20EA, 56MMA/20MAA/24EA.
While the prior art reference does not teach the molecular weight of the polymer, i.e. 15,000 Daltons to 30,000 Daltons, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine the molecular weight of the styrene/maleic anhydride copolymer. It is known in the art that the MW of copolymers is dependent upon their molecular architecture, i.e. amount and arrangement of each monomer, and particularly the method of making the copolymer. For support see Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications. Therefore, methods of making polymers to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight for a particular use, is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0761096 (IDS) supported by Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Ganapatibhotla et al. US20210144938, Sakanishi et al. (US20210380554), and JP4652019.
The teachings of EP096 are found above.
The reference differs from the claimed invention of claim 6, in that it does not disclose a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic anhydride or a copolymer of butyl methacrylate and methacrylic acid.
Ganapatibhotla teaches an aqueous composition comprising a polymer, agricultural water (0037) and may include an insecticide or pesticide (abstract, 0041, 0044) to be applied to plants (0001-0005, 0047, 0048). The composition and polymers used therein are effective in increasing water retention and retaining nutrients to help plants grow, germinate and remain viable (0008) and fixing particles to reduce erosion (0011). The polymers are taught to be dispersion of acrylic copolymers and include structural monomers, including methacrylic acid, acrylic acid, maleic acid, carboxylic acid monomers, methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinyl acetate, styrene, and diisobutylene (0013-0018). The copolymer includes 30-75 wt% of acrylic acid or ester monomers (0015, 0017).
*Applicants specification teaches that “(0014) Exemplary monomers for use in the polymer include, but are not limited to, diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), 2-ethylehexyl acrylate (log P of 4.09), styrene (log P of 2.89), maleic anhydride (log P of 1.62), docosyl methacrylate (log P of 11.59), and combinations thereof.”
Therefore, the copolymers of US’938 contain from 50-70 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of from 2-6, and 90 wt% or greater of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of 1 or greater, according to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, when the copolymers include diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), styrene (log P of 2.89), for example. The copolymer is taught to have a weight average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 Daltons to 3,000,000 Daltons (0027).
Sakanishi et al. (US20210380554) teaches a pest control composition comprising the pesticide/insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (0161, 0250-0254), water (0418, 0419) and a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic acid and their alkali metal salts, a copolymer of acrylic acid and itaconic acid, a copolymer of methacrylic acid and itaconic and a copolymer of maleic acid and styrene (0421) for application to plants and soil.
JP4652019 teaches a pest control composition comprising an agrochemical ingredient selected from a pesticide or insecticide including natural insecticides (p. 4, 2nd and 3rd parag.), a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic anhydride (p. 1 last parag.-p. 2, 1st 3 parag., last parag., p. 3, 3rd full parag., p. 6, see c) copolymer of isobutylene parag., p. 9, Aqueous suspension section) and water (p. 7, 4th-6th parag.) which when applied to plants have sufficient spreading, enhanced water spreadability, increased amount of active ingredient and adhesion to the plant (p. 2, whole page, p. 3, 1st and 2nd full parag., last parag.). The copolymer is present in amounts of 0.01-20 wt% of the composition (p. 7, 1st full parag.). Regarding claim 3, water is added in amounts ranging from 2-99.7 wt% of the composition (p. 8, 3rd and 4th parag.).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, pest control compositions comprising B. thuringiensis, a polymer, and water were known in the prior art of record. Specifically, acrylic copolymers having structural monomers, including methacrylic acid, acrylic acid, maleic acid, carboxylic acid monomers, methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinyl acetate, styrene, and diisobutylene with maleic anhydride (having the claimed log P values) were known and used in pest control compositions to improve pesticide application/dispersion, water-spreadability, increase the active amount of pesticide and adhesion to the plant or soil to which it is applied. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known copolymer taught to be useful in pest control compositions, for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0250908 (IDS) supported by Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Ganapatibhotla et al. US20210144938, Sakanishi et al. (US20210380554), and JP4652019.
The teachings of EP908 are found above.
The reference differs from the claimed invention of claim 6, in that it does not disclose a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic anhydride or a copolymer of butyl methacrylate and methacrylic acid. The reference is silent as to the amount of water present in the composition.
Ganapatibhotla teaches an aqueous composition comprising a polymer, agricultural water (0037) and may include an insecticide or pesticide (abstract, 0041, 0044) to be applied to plants (0001-0005, 0047, 0048). The composition and polymers used therein are effective in increasing water retention and retaining nutrients to help plants grow, germinate and remain viable (0008) and fixing particles to reduce erosion (0011). The polymers are taught to be dispersion of acrylic copolymers and include structural monomers, including methacrylic acid, acrylic acid, maleic acid, carboxylic acid monomers, methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinyl acetate, styrene, and diisobutylene (0013-0018). The copolymer includes 30-75 wt% of acrylic acid or ester monomers (0015, 0017).
*Applicants specification teaches that “(0014) Exemplary monomers for use in the polymer include, but are not limited to, diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), 2-ethylehexyl acrylate (log P of 4.09), styrene (log P of 2.89), maleic anhydride (log P of 1.62), docosyl methacrylate (log P of 11.59), and combinations thereof.”
Therefore, the copolymers of US’938 contain from 50-70 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of from 2-6, and 90 wt% or greater of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P of 1 or greater, according to claims 1, 4, 5, 6, when the copolymers include diisobutylene (log P of 4.08), butyl methacrylate (log P of 2.75), butyl acrylate (log P of 2.20), methyl methacrylate (log P of 1.28), ethyl acrylate (log P of 1.22), styrene (log P of 2.89), for example.
The copolymer is taught to have a weight average molecular weight ranging from 10,000 Daltons to 3,000,000 Daltons (0027).
Sakanishi et al. (US20210380554) teaches a pest control composition comprising the pesticide/insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (0161, 0250-0254), water (0418, 0419) and a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic acid and their alkali metal salts, a copolymer of acrylic acid and itaconic acid, a copolymer of methacrylic acid and itaconic and a copolymer of maleic acid and styrene (0421) for application to plants and soil.
JP4652019 teaches a pest control composition comprising an agrochemical ingredient selected from a pesticide or insecticide including natural insecticides (p. 4, 2nd and 3rd parag.), a copolymer of diisobutylene and maleic anhydride (p. 1 last parag.-p. 2, 1st 3 parag., last parag., p. 3, 3rd full parag., p. 6, see c) copolymer of isobutylene parag., p. 9, Aqueous suspension section) and water (p. 7, 4th-6th parag.) which when applied to plants have sufficient spreading, enhanced water spreadability, increased amount of active ingredient and adhesion to the plant (p. 2, whole page, p. 3, 1st and 2nd full parag., last parag.). The copolymer is present in amounts of 0.01-20 wt% of the composition (p. 7, 1st full parag.). Regarding claim 3, water is added in amounts ranging from 2-99.7 wt% of the composition (p. 8, 3rd and 4th parag.).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, pest control compositions comprising B. thuringiensis, a polymer, and water were known in the prior art of record. Specifically, acrylic copolymers having structural monomers, including methacrylic acid, acrylic acid, maleic acid, carboxylic acid monomers, methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, vinyl acetate, styrene, and diisobutylene with maleic anhydride (having the claimed log P values) were known and used in pest control compositions to improve pesticide application/dispersion, water-spreadability, increase the active amount of pesticide and adhesion to the plant or soil to which it is applied. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known copolymer taught to be useful in pest control compositions, for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
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.
Claim 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18863109 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed inventions are drawn to pest control composition comprising a polymer, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight from 10,000 daltons to 30,000 daltons and contains from 20 wt% to 100 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with log P from 2.0 to 6.0; Bacillus thuringiensis; and water. The water is present in the same amounts of 60-99.89 wt% and the polymers of both compositions comprise 50-70wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P value of from 2.75-4.08. It is noted that the instant claims average molecular weight (15,000-30,000 Daltons) falls entirely within the range of the reference claims 10,000-30,000 Daltons. Reference claim 1 includes humic acid; however, the instant claims are drawn to a composition “comprising” and thus, would not exclude additional components in the composition. Thus, the instant claims are an obvious variation of the reference claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5 of copending Application No. 18863229 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed inventions are drawn to pest control composition comprising a polymer, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight from 10,000 daltons to 30,000 daltons and contains from 20 wt% to 100 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with log P from 2.0 to 6.0; and Bacillus thuringiensis. The polymers of both compositions comprise 50-70wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with a log P value of from 2.75-4.08. It is noted that the instant claims average molecular weight (15,000-30,000 Daltons) falls entirely within the range of the reference claims 10,000-30,000 Daltons. Reference claim 1 is drawn to a spray-dried composition, while the instant claimed composition includes water; however, the dried composition is an obvious formulation variant of the instant claimed composition containing water. Thus, the inventions are obvious variations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18863122 (reference application) supported by Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed inventions are drawn to pest control composition comprising a polymer, Bacillus thuringiensis; and water. It is noted that in the instant claims require the polymer has a weight average molecular weight from 15,000 daltons to 30,000 daltons and contains from 50 wt% to 70 wt% of monomeric structural units derived from a monomer with log P from 2.0 to 6.0. The polymer of the reference claims comprises methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, acrylic acid and vinyl toluene (which have log P values of 1.28, 2.75, 0.46, and 3.58, respectively), thus falling within the scope of monomers of the instant claims. Reference claim 1 includes humic acid; however, the instant claims are drawn to a composition “comprising” and thus, would not exclude additional components in the composition. Thus, the instant claims are an obvious variation of the reference claims. While the reference claims do not require the molecular weight of the polymer, i.e. 15,000 Daltons to 30,000 Daltons, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine the molecular weight of the emulsion polymer of the reference claims. It is known in the art that the MW of copolymers is dependent upon their molecular architecture, i.e. amount and arrangement of each monomer, and particularly the method of making the copolymer. For support see Styrene Maleic Anhydride Copolymer Granules: Comprehensive Analysis Of Synthesis, Properties, And Industrial Applications. Therefore, methods of making polymers to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight for a particular use, is within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 TIFFANY MAUREEN GOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-0697. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 8-5.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TIFFANY M GOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/MELENIE L GORDON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights