DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed 30 January 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office 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 .
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 1-5, 8, 10 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,114,745. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, USP ‘745 (claim 1) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, USP ‘745 (claim 1) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, USP ‘745 (claim 2) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, USP ‘745 (claim 4) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, USP ‘745 (claim 4) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, USP ‘745 (claim 3) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, USP ‘745 (claim 15) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, USP ‘745 (claim 15) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 15.
Claims 9-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,793,284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 9, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, USP ‘745 (claim 4) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, USP ‘745 (claim 19) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, USP ‘745 (claim 1) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, USP ‘745 (claim 18) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, USP ‘745 (claim 1) teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the response filed 30 January 2026, with respect to claims 1-8, with respect to reference US 11,793,284 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims of 1-8, with respect to reference US 11,792,284 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding the other rejections present in the non-final office action, those rejections remain.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735