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 .
The present application is a continuation of Application No. 18/349,478, which is now U.S. Patent No. 12,157,540, which is a continuation of Application No. 17/346,634, which is now U.S. Patent No. 11,718,372, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/706,232, which is now U.S. Patent No. 11,040,757, which is a continuation of Application No. 15/918,022, which is now U.S. Patent No. 10,501,148, which is a continuation of Application No. 15/004,050, which is now U.S. Patent No. 9,914,503.
A preliminary amendment was filed by the applicant on October 31, 2024.
Claims 1-40 have been cancelled.
Claims 41-60 have been added.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 31, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 31, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11-16, 22-25, 32-36 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 9,914,503. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-60 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-4, 11-16, 22-25, 32-36 and 40 of US 9,914,503. In other words, claims 1-4, 11-16, 22-25, 32-36 and 40 of US 9,914,503 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 41-60 and therefore anticipate claims 41-60. Since claims 41-60 are anticipated by claims 1-4, 11-16, 22-25, 32-36 and 40 of US 9,914,503, claims 41-60 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-4, 11-16, 22-25, 32-36 and 40 of US 9,914,503, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-16 and 22-40 of US 9,914,503.
Claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,501,148. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 10,501,148. In other words, claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 10,501,148 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 and therefore anticipate claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60. Since claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are anticipated by claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 10,501,148, claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 10,501,148, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 10,501,148.
Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 19-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,040,757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-60 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-9 and 19-25 of US 11,040,757. In other words, claims 1-9 and 19-25 of US 11,040,757 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 41-60 and therefore anticipate claims 41-60. Since claims 41-60 are anticipated by claims 1-9 and 19-25 of US 11,040,757, claims 41-60 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-9 and 19-25 of US 11,040,757, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-9 and 19-25 of US 11,040,757.
Claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,718,372. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 11,718,372. In other words, claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 11,718,372 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 and therefore anticipate claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60. Since claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are anticipated by claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 11,718,372, claims 41-42, 45-53 and 56-60 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 11,718,372, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-2, 7-10, 19-20 and 25-29 of US 11,718,372.
Claims 41-60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 41-60 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of US 12,157,540. In other words, claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of US 12,157,540 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 41-60 and therefore anticipate claims 41-60. Since claims 41-60 are anticipated by claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of US 12,157,540, claims 41-60 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of US 12,157,540, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-9, 12-15 and 20 of US 12,157,540.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
August 24, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights