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
CONTINUATION APPLICATION
This application is a Continuation of US Application 18/379,975, now U.S. Patent No. 12,126,131.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0001] the U.S. Patent associated with U.S. Patent Application No. 18/379,975 is missing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both similarly teach the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 in view of Abe et al. US 20160365674 A1.
In reference to claim 2, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 does not teach the first outer ferrule comprising a longitudinal first seam with one longitudinal edge of the first outer ferrule that defines a first tab extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge of the first outer ferrule that defines a corresponding first notch configured to receive the first tab.
Abe teaches of a longitudinal first seam (distal end of abutting 38; fig. 8) with one longitudinal edge (distal end of 38) of that defines a first tab (see the triangular shape of the distal end of right 38; fig. 8) extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge that defines a corresponding first notch (see the triangular shaped notch of the distal end of left 38;fig. 8) configured to receive the first tab. Using the teachings of Abe to modify U.S. Patent No. 12126131 to arrive at the results of claim 2 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 3, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 does not teach wherein the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Abe teaches the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12126131 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 12, 14-18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both similarly teach the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in view of Abe et al. US 20160365674 A1.
In reference to claim 2, claim 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach the first outer ferrule comprising a longitudinal first seam with one longitudinal edge of the first outer ferrule that defines a first tab extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge of the first outer ferrule that defines a corresponding first notch configured to receive the first tab.
Abe teaches of a longitudinal first seam (distal end of abutting 38; fig. 8) with one longitudinal edge (distal end of 38) of that defines a first tab (see the triangular shape of the distal end of right 38; fig. 8) extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge that defines a corresponding first notch (see the triangular shaped notch of the distal end of left 38;fig. 8) configured to receive the first tab. Using the teachings of Abe to modify U.S. Patent No. 11824319 to arrive at the results of claim 2 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 3, claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach wherein the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Abe teaches the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claim 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 9, claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach the second seam has one longitudinal edge of the second outer ferrule that defines a second tab extending therefrom and another longitudinal edge of the second outer ferrule defining a corresponding second notch configured to receive the second tab.
Abe teaches of a longitudinal second seam (distal end of abutting 38; fig. 8) with one longitudinal edge (distal end of 38) of that defines a second tab (see the triangular shape of the distal end of right 38; fig. 8) extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge that defines a corresponding second notch (see the triangular shaped notch of the distal end of left 38;fig. 8) configured to receive the second tab. Using the teachings of Abe to modify U.S. Patent No. 11824319 to arrive at the results of claim 9 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 10, claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach wherein the second tab and the second notch have a rectangular shape.
Abe teaches the second tab and the second notch have a triangular shape.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 13, claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach wherein the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Abe teaches the first tab and the first notch have a triangular shape.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
In reference to claim 19, claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 substantially teaches the claimed invention.
However claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 does not teach wherein the second seam has one longitudinal edge of the second outer ferrule that defines a second tab extending therefrom and another longitudinal edge of the second outer ferrule defining a corresponding second notch in which the second tab is received.
Abe teaches of a longitudinal second seam (distal end of abutting 38; fig. 8) with one longitudinal edge (distal end of 38) of that defines a second tab (see the triangular shape of the distal end of right 38; fig. 8) extending therefrom and comprising another longitudinal edge that defines a corresponding second notch (see the triangular shaped notch of the distal end of left 38;fig. 8) configured to receive the second tab. Using the teachings of Abe to modify U.S. Patent No. 11824319 to arrive at the results of claim 19 is seen as an obvious modification.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Abe to modify claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11824319 in order to ensure the alignment of the seams of the first outer ferrule.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS SLOAN CHAMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m.-5:00p.m..
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/TRAVIS S CHAMBERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights