DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication received:
12/19/2024 – Application papers received;
02/03/2025 – Supplemental Application Data Sheet (ADS);
05/28/2025 – IDS;
08/20/2026 – Power of Attorney and Authorization for Internet Communication.
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 .
Continuation Data
This application is a CON of 18/064,851 12/12/2022 PAT 12179073 which is a CON of 17/301,495 04/05/2021 PAT 11534664 which is a CON of 16/599,630 10/11/2019 PAT 10967233 which is a CON of 16/140,764 09/25/2018 PAT 10478683 which is a CON of 15/470,369 03/27/2017 PAT 10112084 which claims benefit of 62/313,214 03/25/2016.
Drawings
The drawings received 12/19/2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Numeral “74”, referenced in paragraph [0036] of the specification, does not appear in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The specification contains numerous instances wherein the use of the terms/phrase “faceplate” and “face plate” are presented to identify the same element. Technically, the correct spelling is --faceplate-- (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2001, by IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.). Applicant should make an effort to provide consistent spelling of the correct term throughout the specification, as this will both simplify and provide for more accurate text searching of the disclosure.
Applicant’s attention is directed to paragraph [0036], wherein the faceplate is identified as numeral “74” and the face plate is identified as numeral “34”. From a reading of the entire specification, it appears that the faceplate is repeatedly referred to as element “34”. Moreover, numeral “74” does not appear in the drawings. Clarification is requested.
It is noted that numerous instances of the term “inches” is used interchangeably with the term “inch” throughout the specification when referring to measurements less than one inch. Technically, a measurement of one inch or less than one inch should be referred to as --inch--, with measurements over one inch being referred to in --inches--. Note that the claims correctly refer to measurements less than one inch using the term --inch--. While the differences may seem subtle, an effort should be made to consistently present the dimensions in the specification using the proper singular or plural designation.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, line 20, “surface” (second occurrence) should be deleted for clarity.
As to claim 1, line 27, “surface” (second occurrence) should be deleted for clarity.
As to claim 1, line 29, it appears that “a bottom” should read --the bottom-- (see claim 1, line 24, wherein a bottom surface is first recited).
As to claims 2-5, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 1.
As to claim 6, line 1, before “insert”, the term --second-- should be inserted so that the correct “distance” is referenced.
As to claim 7, line 1, before “insert”, the term --second-- should be inserted so that the correct “distance” is referenced.
As to claims 8-9, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 1.
As to claim 10, lines 2, it appears that “a bottom” should read --the bottom-- (see claim 1, line 24, wherein a bottom surface is first recited).
As to claim 11, this claim shares the indefiniteness of claim 1.
As to claim 12, line 20, “surface” (second occurrence) should be deleted for clarity.
As to claim 12, line 27, “surface” (second occurrence) should be deleted for clarity.
As to claim 12, line 29, it appears that “a bottom” should read --the bottom-- (see claim 12, line 24, wherein a bottom surface is first recited).
As to claims 13-16, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 12.
As to claim 17, line 1, before “insert”, the term --second-- should be inserted so that the correct “distance” is referenced.
As to claim 18, line 1, before “insert”, the term --second-- should be inserted so that the correct “distance” is referenced.
As to claims 19-20, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 12.
The Office has made every effort to identify all remaining instances of indefiniteness in the current claim set. To the extent that any remaining occurrences of indefiniteness may exist in the claims, the applicant is respectfully asked to thoroughly review the claims and to amend the claims to capture and to correct any remaining instances of indefiniteness of which the applicant may become aware of during the preparation of a response to this action.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of USPN 12,179,073 in view of US PUBS 2004/0180730 to Franklin et al (hereinafter referred to as “Franklin”).
The claimed invention of the ‘073 patent requires all of the limitations of the instant claims 1-11 with the exception of “wherein the second insert surface comprises a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert” (instant claim 1). Here, Franklin shows it to be old in the art to configure an insert, which is situated directly behind a faceplate, and varies in shape and thickness in order to alter the damping characteristics of the golf club head (i.e., see paragraphs [0044] – [0045]). In view of the teaching in Franklin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the ‘073 patent by providing the second insert surface of the insert with a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert, the motivation being to alter the vibrational characteristics of the golf club head for enhanced performance.
As for the remaining limitations in claims 1-20, note the following remarks:
As to independent claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 2 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 4 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 5 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 6 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 7 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 8, see claim 8 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 9, see claim 9 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 10, see claim 10 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 11, see claim 11 of the ‘073 patent.
As to independent claim 12, the claimed invention of the ‘073 patent lacks the now-claimed requirement “wherein the second insert surface comprises a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert”. Here, Franklin shows it to be old in the art to configure an insert, which is situated directly behind a faceplate, and varies in shape and thickness in order to alter the damping characteristics of the golf club head (i.e., see paragraphs [0044] – [0045]). In view of the teaching in Franklin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the ‘073 patent by providing the second insert surface of the insert with a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert, the motivation being to alter the vibrational characteristics of the golf club head for enhanced performance.
Moreover, the claimed invention of the ‘073 lacks “at least one protrusion” (instant claim 12). Instead, claim 1 of the ‘073 patent requires at least one or more ribs. Any distinctions over the arrangement of the at least one rib of the ‘073 patent or, alternatively or in combination with, at least one protrusion to be selectively placed within the gap between the front portion of the insert and the opposing interior surface of the faceplate would have involved an obvious design choice, namely an obvious rearrangement of parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As to claim 13, see claim 2 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 14 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 15 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 5 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 17, see claim 16 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 18, see claim 17 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 19, see claim 18 of the ‘073 patent.
As to claim 20, see claims 19-20 of the ‘073 patent.
/
/
/
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of USPN 10,478,683 in view of Gilbert (USPN 7,559,850) and also in view of Gilbert (US PUBS 2007/0281796) and also in view of US PUBS 2004/0180730 to Franklin et al (hereinafter referred to as “Franklin”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘683 patent, on one hand, merely stipulate the shape of the insert and the arrangement of the transition between the first and second surfaces in a slightly different, yet obvious manner. Claim 1 of the ‘683 patent call for a U shape defining the relationship between the first and second arms and the transition of the first and second arms into the cross member. Instead, the instant independent claim 1 details a first arm width and a second arm width that account for 5% to 40% of a total maximum width of the insert. These differences merely account for an obvious change in the shape of the insert over the claims of the ‘683 patent. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
On the other hand, and with respect to claims 1 and 10-12, the claims of the ‘683 patent lack the required elements of “at least one rib” (instant claim 1) along with the requirements of “wherein the at least one rib extends in a direction from near a top surface of the insert to near a bottom surface of the insert” (instant claim 10); and “wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise a plurality of ribs” (instant claim 11) along with “at least one protrusion” (instant claim 12). Here, each of Gilbert (‘850) and Gilbert (‘796) teaches that an insert portion received within a cavity may include one or more ribs. The ribs serve to maintain a snug fit between the insert and a cavity wall, to strengthen the striking face at selective portions and to control the mass of the insert. See paragraph [0054] in Gilbert (‘796). See Figs. 15A-15E and the accompanying description in the specification in col. 11, lines 22-35 in Gilbert (‘850). In view of the combined teachings in Gilbert (‘850) and Gilbert (‘796), one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the claimed device of the ‘683 patent by incorporating ribs or protrusions upon the insert surface of the front portion of the insert in order to help maintain the position of the insert against the rear surface of the striking face and within the cavity.
In addition, the claims of the ‘683 patent lack the additional requirements of the instant claims, namely “wherein the second insert surface comprises a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert” (instant claims 1 and 12). Here, Franklin shows it to be old in the art to configure an insert, which is situated directly behind a faceplate, and varies in shape and thickness in order to alter the damping characteristics of the golf club head (i.e., see paragraphs [0044] – [0045]). In view of the teaching in Franklin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the ‘683 patent by providing the second insert surface of the insert with a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert, the motivation being to alter the vibrational characteristics of the golf club head for enhanced performance.
As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following:
As to claim 1, see claims 1 and 2 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 1 of the ‘683 patent. Here, the U shape created by the first arm, the second arm and the cross member of the ‘683 patent essentially provides an arcuate border defining a transition between the first and second surfaces, as now claimed.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 4 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 5 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 6 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 7 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 8, see claim 8 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 9, see claim 9 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 13, see claim 11 of the ‘683 patent. Here, the U shape created by the first arm, the second arm and the cross member of the ‘683 patent essentially provides an arcuate border defining a transition between the first and second surfaces, as now claimed.
As to claim 14, see claim 11 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 13 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 5 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 17, see claim 15 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 18, see claim 16 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 19, see claim 17 of the ‘683 patent.
As to claim 20, see claims 18-19 of the ‘683 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of USPN 10,112,084 in view of US PUBS 2004/0180730 to Franklin et al (hereinafter referred to as “Franklin”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘084 patent merely stipulate the shape of the insert and the arrangement of the transition between the first and second surfaces in a slightly different, yet obvious manner.
In addition, the claims of the ‘084 patent lack the additional requirements of the instant claims, namely “wherein the second insert surface comprises a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert” (instant claims 1 and 12). Here, Franklin shows it to be old in the art to configure an insert, which is situated directly behind a faceplate, and varies in shape and thickness in order to alter the damping characteristics of the golf club head (i.e., see paragraphs [0044] – [0045]). In view of the teaching in Franklin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the ‘084 patent by providing the second insert surface of the insert with a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert, the motivation being to alter the vibrational characteristics of the golf club head for enhanced performance.
As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claims 1 and 2 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 5 of the ‘084 patent. Here, the U shape created by the first arm, the second arm and the cross member of the ‘084 patent essentially provides an arcuate border defining a transition between the first and second surfaces, as now claimed.
As to claims 3 and 4, see claims 3 and 12 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 4 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 6, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 7, the claimed distance range is deemed to be an obvious design variation over the distance range recited in claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Here, establishing the optimum distance between the insert surface and the opposing interior surface of the face plate to achieve a specific ball-striking response would have been accomplished using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 8, see claim 16 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 9, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent. Although the claims of the ‘084 patent require a uniform face thickness, the inclusion of a face thickness, whether uniform or varied, and within a range of thicknesses would have been a matter of obvious design choice. Here, establishing the optimum face thickness to achieve a specific ball-striking response would have been accomplished using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11, claim 10 of the ‘084 patent requires one or more ribs or protrusions. Any distinctions over the arrangement of the one or more ribs or protrusions of the ‘084 patent would have involved an obvious design choice, namely an obvious rearrangement of parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As to claim 12, see claims 1, 5 and 10 of the ‘084 patent. Also, see the comments hereinabove with respect to the modification of the claimed invention of the ‘084 patent in view of the teachings in Franklin, and regarding the curved contour.
As to claim 13, see claim 5 of the ‘084 patent. Here, the U shape created by the first arm, the second arm and the cross member of the ‘084 patent essentially provides an arcuate border defining a transition between the first and second surfaces, as now claimed.
As to claims 14-15, see claims 3 and 12 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 4 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 17, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 18, the claimed distance range is deemed to be an obvious design variation over the distance range recited in claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Here, establishing the optimum distance between the insert surface and the opposing interior surface of the face plate to achieve a specific ball-striking response would have been accomplished using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 19, see claims 9 and 16 of the ‘084 patent.
As to claim 20, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘084 patent. Although the claims of the ‘084 patent are silent with respect to a maximum face thickness, the inclusion of a face thickness governed by a maximum thickness limit would have been a matter of obvious design choice. Here, establishing a maximum face thickness to achieve a specific ball-striking response would have been accomplished using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of USPN 11,534,664 in view of Gilbert (USPN 7,559,850) and also in view of Gilbert (US PUBS 2007/0281796) and also in view of US PUBS 2004/0180730 to Franklin et al (hereinafter referred to as “Franklin”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, on the one hand, the claims of the ‘664 patent merely recite the limitations of the instant claims in a slightly different arrangement. Here, instant independent claim 1 details a first arm width and a second arm width that account for 5% to 40% of a total maximum width of the insert. These differences merely account for an obvious change in the shape of the insert over the claims of the ‘664 patent. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
On the other hand, and with respect to claims 1 and 10-12, the claims of the ‘664 patent lack the required elements of “at least one rib” (instant claim 1) along with the requirements of “wherein the at least one rib extends in a direction from near a top surface of the insert to near a bottom surface of the insert” (instant claim 10); and “wherein the first arm and the second arm comprise a plurality of ribs” (instant claim 11) along with “at least one protrusion” (instant claim 12). Here, each of Gilbert (‘850) and Gilbert (‘796) teaches that an insert portion received within a cavity may include one or more ribs. The ribs serve to maintain a snug fit between the insert and a cavity wall, to strengthen the striking face at selective portions and to control the mass of the insert. See paragraph [0054] in Gilbert (‘796). See Figs. 15A-15E and the accompanying description in the specification in col. 11, lines 22-35 in Gilbert (‘850). In view of the combined teachings in Gilbert (‘850) and Gilbert (‘796), one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the claimed device of the ‘664 patent by incorporating ribs or protrusions upon the insert surface of the front portion of the insert in order to help maintain the position of the insert against the rear surface of the striking face and within the cavity.
In addition, the claims of the ‘664 patent lack the additional requirements of the instant claims, namely “wherein the second insert surface comprises a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert” (instant claim 1). Here, Franklin shows it to be old in the art to configure an insert, which is situated directly behind a faceplate, and varies in shape and thickness in order to alter the damping characteristics of the golf club head (i.e., see paragraphs [0044] – [0045]). In view of the teaching in Franklin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention of the ‘664 patent by providing the second insert surface of the insert with a curved contour extending from near a bottom surface of the insert to near a top surface of the insert and in a direction extending from near a heel end of the insert to near a toe end of the insert, the motivation being to alter the vibrational characteristics of the golf club head for enhanced performance.
As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following:
As to claim 1, see claims 1 and 2 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 1 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 4 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 5 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 6 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 7 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 8, see claim 8 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 9, see claim 9 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 12, see claim 11 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 13, see claim 1 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 11 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 12 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 16, see claim 5 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 17, see claim 14 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 18, see claim 15 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 19, see claim 16 of the ‘664 patent.
As to claim 20, see claims 17-18 of the ‘664 patent.
Further Observations on Double Patenting
Applicant is respectfully urged to maintain a clear line of demarcation between the instant claim set and the claims in each of the further, related patents listed hereinbelow. While no double patenting rejections based on the patents listed below are currently being made of record, maintaining a clear distinction between the instant claims and the claims of each of the patents listed here will help to reduce the likelihood of obviousness-type double patenting concerns arising during later prosecution in the instant case. It is clear that the applicant, who in this case is most familiar with the language, content and prosecution history of the related patents identified here, is best equipped to recognize any potential double patenting concerns and should therefore make an effort to amend the instant claims or file appropriate terminal disclaimers. The applicant is respectfully requested to provide further comment as to whether the applicant believes that the claims of any of the USPNs listed hereinbelow conflict, or do not conflict, with the claims of the instant application.
USPNs: 10022601; 10363466; 10300355; 10675518; 10695629; 10967233; 10668338; 11291891; 11135487; 10987552; and 11033789
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571)-270-1775. 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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights