DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 June 2026 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, “is disclosed herein that” (line 1) and “disclosed herein” (line 2) should be deleted (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “a dual layer core” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if “core” is referring to the antecedent limitation “a core” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitaiton. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “a dual layer core, a casing layer, and the cover” to --a casing layer, the cover, and the core being a dual layer core--.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “a core” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation of the same name (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “a” to --the--.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of claims (see entries in the table below) of co-pending applications 18/915,976, 18/915,794, 18/916,092, 18/916,006, and 18915,943 (note: all of these applications correspond with US PG-PUBs that are cited in the IDS filed 11 June 2026). This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claim
Claims of 18/915,976
Claims of 18/915,794
Claims of 18/916,092
Claims of 18/916,006
Claims of 18/915,943
1
1
1
1 or 24 or 25
1
1
2
1 or 2
1 or 8
1 or 2 or 24 or 25
1 or 2
1 or 2 or 3
3
1 or 2
1 or 9
1 or 2 or 24 or 25
1 or 2
1 or 2 or 3
4
1 or 3
1 or 10
1 or 3 or 4 or 24 or 25
1 or 3 or 4
1 or 3 or 4
5
1 or 3
1 or 11
1 or 3 or 4 or 24 or 25
1 or 3 or 4
1 or 3 or 4
6
1 or 6
1 or 12
1 or 8 or 9 or 24 or 25
1 or 11
1 or 6 or 7
7
1 or 6
1 or 13
1 or 8 or 9 or 24 or 25
1 or 11
1 or 6 or 7
8
1 or 7
1 or 14
1 or 10 or 11 or 24 or 25
1 or 12
1 or 8 or 9
9
1 or 7
1 or 14
1 or 10 or 11 or 24 or 25
1 or 12
1 or 8 or 9
10
1 or 8
1 or 15 or 16
1 or 12 or 24 or 25
1 or 13
1 or 10 or 11
11
1 or 8
1 or 15 or 16 or 17
1 or 12 or 24 or 25
1 or 13
1 or 10 or 11
12
--
--
--
15
12
13
1 or 9
--
1 or 13 or 24 or 25
1
13
14
1
1 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 14 or 15 or 16
15
1
1 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 14 or 15 or 16
16
1
1 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 14 or 15 or 16
17
1
1 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 14 or 15 or 16
18
1
1 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 18 or 19 or 20
19
1
1 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 18 or 19 or 20
20
1
1 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28
1 or 24 or 25
1
1 or 18 or 19 or 20
It is noted that all corresponding claims of the co-pending applications include ranges for the various claimed parameters that at least overlap with the instant claimed ranges, with one exception: in claim 1 of 18/915,943, the upper bound for the range for CD/CL is non-inclusive (due to the symbol “>”) of 1.800 and, thus, does not overlap with the claimed lower bound that is inclusive (due to the symbol ≤) of 1.800 in the application claim 1. However, MPEP 2144.05 subsection I states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” - accordingly, since the bound established by “>1.800” is substantially close (i.e., within 0.001, which is a fraction of a percent relative to either of the bounds (i.e., 1.800 or 2.000) defining the claimed range or the difference (i.e., 2.000-1.800 = 0.200) between the bounds, then the application claim 1 is deemed to be obvious over claim 1 of 18/915,943.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights