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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP S6256822 B2)(Tanaka ‘822) in view of Unger et al. (US 2020/0298917 A1), Tanaka (JP H09156541 A)(Tanaka ‘541) and Burger et al. (US 5,538,168 A)(Burger).
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Tanaka ‘822 discloses a spare wheel carrier for a vehicle (Fig. 1), the spare wheel carrier comprising, a hinge bracket (2) configured to rigidly couple to a first rear pillar (Fig. 1), a first hinge and a second hinge (noting the instances of 2), locking member (3) configured to rigidly couple to a second rear pillar arranged on an opposite side of the vehicle from the first rear pillar (Fig. 1), a carrier beam (C) rotatably coupled to the first hinge and the second hinge and including the lock portion is configured to engage and disengage a member to allow the carrier to swing.
Tanaka ‘822 does not specifically disclose a hinge bracket including a first and second hinge studs.
Unger teaches a similar swinging wheel carrier including a hinge bracket including an upper and lower hinges (170/174), each having a hinge stud (210).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Tanaka ‘822 and use the teaching of Unger and include a bracket having a pair of hinge portions each having a hinge stud because such a change would require a mere choice of one known hinge structure over another and would have yielded predictable results. Alternatively, including a connecting portion between hinge portions similar to 178 of Unger would help to couple the hinges thereby maintaining a desired position and alignment relative to one another.
Tanaka ‘822 demonstrates a connectable locking device but does not specifically disclose a strike plate or a latch positioned to selectively engage the strike plate.
Tanaka ‘541 demonstrates a similar device including a connection including a striker plate (9f) and latch mechanism (9a) as well as a handle (37) coupled to the carrier beam and configured to control operation of the latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka ‘822 and include a striker and latch mechanism operated by a handle similar to that of Tanaka ‘541 because such a change would have required the mere choice of one known connecting mechanism for another and would have yielded predictable results.
Modified Tanaka does not specifically disclose a frame lower support configured to rigidly couple to a lower frame member arranged between the first rear pillar and the second rear pillar; and a gate lower support positioned to selectively engage the frame lower support.
Burger disclose a frame lower support (34) configured to rigidly couple to a lower frame member (42) arranged between the first rear pillar and the second rear pillar (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) and a gate lower support (55/57) positioned to selectively engage the frame lower support.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka and further include a frame lower support and a gate lower support in order to further support the tire carrier when it is in a closed position as demonstrated by Burger.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Tanaka ‘541 demonstrates the strike plate includes a strike plate receiver (9g), and wherein the latch includes a latch pin (9e) sized to be received within the strike plate receiver.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Burger discloses the frame lower support includes a lower receiver (34), and wherein the gate lower support includes a lower support pin (57) sized to receive the lower support pin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the place the support pin on the lower frame support and the receiver on the gate lower support because such a change would have required a mere reversal of parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Burger demonstrates the lower support receiver (34) includes an elastomeric (rubber) stop. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka ‘822 and reshape the stop such that it forms a sleeve because such a change would have required a mere change in shape of a component. There is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Burger discloses the pin engaging the support receiver and specifically the rubber stop such that the pin is biased by the rubber stop to stabilize the spare tire assembly (Col. 4; Ll. 17-24), but does not specifically disclose the biasing (preload) provided is less than 100 N, or a preload length of 2 mm to 6 mm. Such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimal range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Tanaka ‘541 demonstrates the latch includes a latch pin (9e), wherein the frame lower support includes a lower receiver rather than a pin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the place the support pin on the lower frame support and the receiver on the gate lower support because such a change would have required a mere reversal of parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
The modified device demonstrates a latch pin and a lower support pin separated by a vertical distance, but does not specifically disclose a vertical distance of 250 mm to 350 mm. It would have been obvious to size the device such that the vertical distance is between 250 mm and 350 mm because such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component or a mere finding of an optimal range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Unger demonstrates the first hinge stud defines a first hinge interface plane, wherein the second hinge stud defines a second hinge interface plane (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not specifically disclose the first hinge interface plane is spaced from the second hinge interface plane by 150 mm to 225 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka and space the first and second hinge interface planes by 150mm to 225 mm because such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component or a mere finding of an optimal range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9-11, modified Tanaka ‘822 and specifically Unger discloses the hinge bracket includes a hinge strut bracket (414), and wherein the carrier beam includes a carrier strut mount (Fig. 21, noting where 404 connects to the carrier), the spare wheel carrier further comprising a strut (404) extending between the hinge strut bracket and the carrier strut mount, the hinge strut bracket is positioned between the first hinge stud and the second hinge stud (Fig. 21), wherein the first hinge stud defines a first hinge interface plane, wherein the second hinge stud defines a second hinge interface plane, and wherein the hinge strut bracket is positioned between the first hinge interface plane and the second hinge interface plane (Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tanaka ‘822 discloses a spare wheel attachment but does not specifically disclose a wheel projection extending from the carrier beam and configured to fasten to a spare wheel.
Burger further demonstrates a wheel projection (60) extending from the carrier beam and configured to fasten to a spare wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka ‘822 and further use the teaching of Burger and include a spare wheel attachment projection in order to place the spare wheel connection in a desired and easily accessible location as demonstrated by Burger.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP S6256822 B2)(Tanaka ‘822) in view of Unger et al. (US 2020/0298917 A1), Tanaka (JP H09156541 A)(Tanaka ‘541) and Burger et al. (US 5,538,168 A)(Burger) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newbill (US 2008/0047985 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Tanaka ‘822 does not specifically disclose a wheel cover coupled to the carrier beam, the wheel cover is rotationally coupled to the carrier beam by a cover hinge.
Newbill discloses a pivotable spare wheel holder including a wheel cover (170) coupled to the carrier beam, the wheel cover is rotationally coupled to the carrier beam by a cover hinge (163/173).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka ‘822 and include a pivoting wheel cover similar to that of Newbill in order to protect the spare wheel and/or improve the aesthetics of the device, or to provide a convenient place to mount a license plate as demonstrated by Newbill.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP H09156541 A)(Tanaka ‘541) in view of Unger et al. (US 2020/0298917 A1), and Burger et al. (US 5,538,168 A)(Burger)
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka ‘541 discloses a spare wheel carrier for a vehicle (Fig. 4), the spare wheel carrier comprising, a hinge bracket (12) including a first hinge, and a second hinge (noting the instances of 2) a carrier beam rotatably coupled to the first hinge and the second hinge, a connection including a strike plate (9f) and latch mechanism (9a), a latch pin (9e) coupled to the carrier beam and spaced from the hinge bracket, a strike plate receiver (9g) sized to receive the latch pin.
Tanaka ‘541 does not specifically disclose a hinge bracket including a first and second hinge studs.
Unger teaches a similar swinging wheel carrier including a hinge bracket including an upper and lower hinges (170/174), each having a hinge stud (210).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Tanaka ‘541 and use the teaching of Unger and include a bracket having a pair of hinge portions each having a hinge stud because such a change would require a mere choice of one known hinge structure over another and would have yielded predictable results. Alternatively, including a connecting portion between hinge portions similar to 178 of Unger would help to couple the hinges thereby maintaining a desired position and alignment relative to one another.
Modified Tanaka ‘541 does not specifically disclose a lower support extending downwardly from the carrier beam, a lower support receiver coupled to the lower support; and a lower support pin sized to be received within the lower support receiver.
Burger disclose a frame lower support (34) configured to rigidly couple to a lower frame member (42) arranged between the first rear pillar and the second rear pillar (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) and a gate lower support (55/57) positioned to selectively engage the frame lower support.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka ‘541 and further include a frame lower support and a gate lower support in order to further support the tire carrier when it is in a closed position as demonstrated by Burger.
Modified Tanaka ‘541 and specifically Burger discloses the frame lower support includes a lower receiver (34), and wherein the gate lower support includes a lower support pin (57) sized to receive the lower support pin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the place the support pin on the lower frame support and the receiver on the gate lower support because such a change would have required a mere reversal of parts. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
The modified device of Tanaka ‘541 demonstrates a latch pin and a lower support pin separated by a vertical distance, but does not specifically disclose a vertical distance of 250 mm to 350 mm. It would have been obvious to size the device such that the vertical distance is between 250 mm and 350 mm because such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component or a mere finding of an optimal range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, modified Tanaka ‘541 and specifically Burger discloses the pin engaging the support receiver and specifically the rubber stop such that the pin is biased by the rubber stop to stabilize the spare tire assembly (Col. 4; Ll. 17-24), but does not specifically disclose the biasing (preload) provided is less than 100 N, or a preload length of 2 mm to 6 mm. Such a change would have required a mere finding of an optimal range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, modified Tanaka ‘541 demonstrates the latch pin (9e) is positioned adjacent a latch (9a).
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka ‘541 discloses a spare wheel carrier for a vehicle (Fig. 4), the spare wheel carrier comprising: a hinge bracket (12) defining a first hinge interface plane and a second hinge stud (noting one of the instances of 13) defining a second hinge interface plane, a carrier beam (14) rotationally coupled to the hinge bracket, a latch pin (9e) coupled to the carrier beam opposite the hinge bracket;
Tanaka ‘541 does not specifically disclose a strut extending between the hinge bracket and the carrier beam between the first hinge interface plane and the second hinge interface plane, and a lower support pin coupled to the carrier beam via a lower support.
Unger teaches a similar swinging wheel carrier including a hinge bracket including an upper and lower hinges (170/174) each defining an interface plate, each having a hinge stud (210) and including a strut (404) extending between the hinge bracket and the carrier beam between the first hinge interface plane and the second hinge interface plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Tanaka ‘822 and use the teaching of Unger and include a bracket having a pair of hinge portions each having a hinge stud because such a change would require a mere choice of one known hinge structure over another and would have yielded predictable results. Alternatively, including a connecting portion between hinge portions similar to 178 of Unger would help to couple the hinges thereby maintaining a desired position and alignment relative to one another.
Modified Tanaka ‘541 does not specifically disclose a lower support pin coupled to the carrier beam via a lower support.
Burger discloses a frame lower support pin (57) coupled to the carrier beam via a lower support that interacts with a lower support receiver.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka and further include a frame lower pin coupled to the carrier beam via a lower support that interacts with a lower receiver in order to further support the tire carrier when it is in a closed position as demonstrated by Burger.
Regarding claim 20, modified Tanaka ‘541 and specifically Unger demonstrates the first hinge stud defines a first hinge interface plane, wherein the second hinge stud defines a second hinge interface plane (Figs. 1 and 5), but does not specifically disclose the first hinge interface plane is spaced from the second hinge interface plane by 150 mm to 225 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Tanaka and space the first and second hinge interface planes by 150mm to 225 mm because such a change would have required a mere change in size of a component or a mere finding of an optimal range. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 and 11, 16, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 7, 16, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claim 1-3.
Claims 5-7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9-11 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claims 5-7.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claim 8.
Claims 13-15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claims 13-15.
Claims 16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 18, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16 and 18, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claims 16 and 18.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claim 17.
Claim 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/923499 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 7 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/923499 teach all of the limitations of claim 19-20.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 1-3, 9 and 11.
Claims 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 7-8 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 7-8 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 5-6.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claim 7.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claim 12.
Claims 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 13-14.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, and 9 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 15.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 16 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 16.
Claims 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/923551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/923551 teach all of the limitations of claims 19-20.
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 MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights