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 .
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2022-11-277 to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated
by Kikkawa (WO2022050104, rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20230312402).
Regarding claims 1-5: Kikkawa teaches an inorganic composition article obtained by strengthening a crystallized glass, wherein the crystallized glass comprises α-cristobalite as a main crystal phase (abstract).
The glass comprises in mass % an oxide composition meeting that claimed (see 0012-0015, 0018, 0022-0023, 0026-0032, 0035-0037, 0064 and Examples).
While Kikkawa does teach that their article includes a compressive stress layer on the surface following strengthening (see 0039), Kikkawa just does not explicitly discuss making the CT fall within the range of claim 1. However, the following is noted.
Initially, as discussed above, Kikkawa’s glass meets that claim having the same composition as Applicants.
Additionally, Applicants disclose their glass having a thickness of 0.1-2mm (see published specification par 0093) and Kikkawa similarly teaches their glass having a thickness of 0.1-2mm (0081).
Applicants disclose that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 1-stage or a 2-stage treatment (see published specification par 0096-0099 and 0101),
1stage
2-stage
600-800 or 630-770C
60-400min
1
450-750, 500-720 or 550-680C
30-2000 or 180-1440min
2
550-850 or 600-800C
30-600 or 60-400min
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 1-stage or 2-stage treatment (see published par 0105 and 0107 but note for the record that K, Na and Li salts are disclosed throughout as being that of KNO3, NaNO3 and LiNO3).
1-stage
2-stage
K salt and/or Na salt and/or Li salt
350-550C
30-500min
1
K+Na salt, Na salt, or K+Na+Li salt
350-500C
1-1440, 15-500 or 30-300min
2
K salt or K+Na salt or K+Li salt or K+Na+Li salt
350-550C
1-1400 or 60-600min
Kikkawa similarly discloses that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 1-stage or a 2-stage treatment (see 0084-0088),
1stage
2-stage
600-800 or 630-770C
30-500 or 60-400min
1
450-750, 500-720 or 550-680C
30-2000 or 180-1440min
2
550-850 or 600-800C
30-600 or 60-400min
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 1-stage or 2-stage treatment (see 0090-0092 but note for the record that K, Na and Li salts are disclosed throughout as being that of KNO3, NaNO3 and LiNO3).
1-stage
2-stage
K and/or Na salt
350-550C
1-1400min
1
K+Na salt,
350-500C
1-1440, 30-500min
2
K salt or K+Na salt,
350-550C
1-1400 or 60-600min
Given the similarities between that of Kikkawa’s article structure and Applicants’, Kikkawa’s crystallized glass having the same crystal phase, composition and thickness as Applicants and Kikkawa’s method of making being substantially similar to Applicants’ using crystallization temps and durations as well as similar salts, temperatures and durations used in ion exchange, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT properties to result (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: Kikkawa does teach their article having a Tg of less than 610C (0050) but they just do not explicitly mention said Tg being of the glass prior to crystallization. However, as it was mentioned above that Kikkawa’s glass composition is the same as Applicants’, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same Tg prior to crystallization to be present (MPEP 2112).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
2. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kikkawa (WO2022050104, rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20230312402) or alternatively, in further view of any one of USPub20110151282, USPub20110135963, USPub20190300426, or USPub20200055764.
Regarding claim 7: Note that claim 7 is a product by process claim as it defines the use of a Li containing salt bath during manufacture and it has been held by the courts that while a product claim may be defined by a process, patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of manufacture. Specifically, if a product of the prior art meets the product claimed, the claim will be considered to be met regardless of whether or not the prior art uses a different method (MPEP 2113). In the instant case, as discussed above, Kikkawa teaches the product of claim 1 and as such, the claim is met.
However, in the instance Applicants argue and/or show that the process limitation of claim 7 provides additional structure to the article claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, Kikkawa does not appear to place limits on salt baths used in their ion exchange step and instead, only generally teaches chemically strengthening their lithium containing crystallized glass using potassium and/or sodium salts.
As it is well known in the art of chemically strengthened lithium containing crystallized glass which are strengthened using potassium and/or sodium salts to add LiNO3 into the salt bath for a variety of benefits such as, but not limited to, providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening (see abstract and 0063 in ‘963 and 0080 in ‘282), poisoning the salt bath with the lithium salt to improve salt bath chemistry (see 0097 in ‘426 and 0094-0095 in ‘764), etc., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Kikkawa to include LiNO3 in the ion exchange salt bath for providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening, improving bath chemistry, etc.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (WO2020179872, rejection using corresponding English document US11,807,568).
Regarding claims 1-5: ‘568 teaches crystallized glass containing an alpha cristobalite or alpha cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (abstract) and comprises the following in mass% (see Ogasawara claims).
SiO2
50-75
Al2O3
5 to <15
Li2O
3-10
P2O5
0-10
ZrO2
1.2-10
K2O
0-10
Na2O
0-10
MgO
0-10
CaO
0-10
SrO
0-10
BaO
0-10
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-3
Nb2O5
0-10
Ta2O5
0-10
TiO2
0 to <7
Al2O3+ZrO2
>16.2
‘568 also teaches that 0-2 mass% B2O3 can be added as desired (Col. 6, lines 5-9).
The above composition and teaching allow for overlap with the conditions presently claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
‘568 teaches their glass having a compressive stress layer on the surface (abstract, Examples).
While ‘568 does teach that their article includes a compressive stress layer on the surface following strengthening (see entire document), they do not explicitly discuss making the CT fall within the range of claim 1. However, the following is noted.
Initially, as discussed above, ‘568’s glass meets that claim having a composition meeting Applicants.
Additionally, ‘568’s glass thickness of 10mm (see document) falls within Applicants allowed for thickness range of 0.5mm or more (see published specification par 0093).
Further, Applicants disclose that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 1-stage or a 2-stage treatment (see published specification par 0096-0099 and 0101),
1stage
2-stage
600-800 or 630-770C
60-400min
1
450-750, 500-720 or 550-680C
30-2000 or 180-1440min
2
550-850 or 600-800C
30-600 or 60-400min
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 1-stage or 2-stage treatment (see published par 0105 and 0107 but note for the record that K, Na and Li salts are disclosed throughout as being that of KNO3, NaNO3 and LiNO3).
1stage
2-stage
K salt and/or Na salt and/or Li salt
350-550C
30-500min
1
K+Na salt, Na salt, or K+Na+Li salt
350-500C
1-1440, 15-500 or 30-300min
2
K salt or K+Na salt or K+Li salt or K+Na+Li salt
350-550C
1-1400 or 60-600min
‘568 similarly discloses that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 2-stage treatment (see Col. 7, lines 4-14 and Examples 7-9, 11-15, 17-20, 21-24, 26-28),
2-stage
1
450-750, 500-720 or even 550-680
30-2000min or even 180-1440min
2
600-800C
30-600 or 60-400min
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 2-stage treatment (see Col. 7, lines 45-62).
2-stage
1
NaNO3 salt,
350-550C
1-1440, 90-500min
2
KNO3 salt
350-550C
1-1400 or 60-600min
Given the similarities between that of ‘568 article structure and Applicants’, ‘568’s crystallized glass having the same crystal phase, overlapping composition and thickness as Applicants and ‘568’s method of making being substantially similar to Applicants’ using crystallization temps and durations as well as similar salts, temperatures and durations used in ion exchange, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT properties to result (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: Given that ‘568’s crystallized glass meets that claimed, the glass transition properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
4. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (WO2020179872, rejection using corresponding English document US11,807,568) or alternatively, in further view of any one of USPub20110151282, USPub20110135963, USPub20190300426, or USPub20200055764.
Regarding claim 7: Note that claim 7 is a product by process claim as it defines the use of a Li containing salt bath during manufacture and it has been held by the courts that while a product claim may be defined by a process, patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of manufacture. Specifically, if a product of the prior art meets the product claimed, the claim will be considered to be met regardless of whether or not the prior art uses a different method (MPEP 2113). In the instant case, as discussed above, ‘568 teaches the product of claim 1 and as such, the claim is met.
However, in the instance Applicants argue and/or show that the process limitation of claim 7 provides additional structure to the article claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, ‘568 does not appear to place limits on salt baths used in their ion exchange step and instead, only generally teaches chemically strengthening their lithium containing crystallized glass using potassium and/or sodium salts.
As it is well known in the art of chemically strengthened lithium containing crystallized glass which are strengthened using potassium and/or sodium salts to add LiNO3 into the salt bath for a variety of benefits such as, but not limited to, providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening (see abstract and 0063 in ‘963 and 0080 in ‘282), poisoning the salt bath with the lithium salt to improve salt bath chemistry (see 0097 in ‘426 and 0094-0095 in ‘764), etc., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify ‘568 to include LiNO3 in the ion exchange salt bath for providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening, improving bath chemistry, etc.
5. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (USPub20080248316) in view of any one of (USPN8,071,493), (USPub20010056021) or (WO2020179872, rejection using corresponding English document US11,807,568).
Regarding claims 1-5: Goto teaches a crystallized glass substrate which can include alpha cristobalite solid solution as a main crystal phase (see Goto claim 2) and comprise the following in mass% (see Got claims 9-10).
SiO2
50-90
Al2O3
2-20
Li2O
4-15
P2O5
0-3
ZrO2
0-10
K2O
0-3
Na2O
0-2
MgO
0-3
CaO
0-7
SrO
0-7
BaO
0-7
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-2
TiO2
0-5
As shown above, Goto’s glass includes 0-5 TiO2 overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05) and does not disclose the presence of Nb2O5 or Ta2O5 thereby, corresponding to 0% of these oxides.
While the above composition fails to include B2O3 as required by the claims, ‘316 does not appear to exclude such an oxide but instead, only generally teaches a crystallized glass wherein the crystallized glass.
As ‘493, ‘021 and ‘568, who each similarly teach crystallized glass, disclose that B2O3 can be desirably added to such glasses in contents of less than 5mass% for realization of low viscosity and enhanced dissolution and moldability (see ‘493 Col. 8, lines 66-67 bridged to Col. 9, lines 1-8), 0.1-5mass% to act as a former and accelerating crystal deposition and growth while having improved melting characteristics (see 0036 in ‘021) or even 0-2% as desired (Col. 6, lines 3-9 in ‘568), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify Goto to include 5mass% or less for realization of low viscosity and enhanced dissolution and moldability, 0.1-5mass% to act as a former and accelerating crystal deposition and growth while having improved melting characteristics or even 0-2% as desired with a reasonable expectation of success.
The above modification will provide Goto with the following,
SiO2
50-90
Al2O3
2-20
Li2O
4-15
B2O3
<5, 0.1-5 or 0-2
P2O5
0-3
ZrO2
0-10
K2O
0-3
Na2O
0-2
MgO
0-3
CaO
0-7
SrO
0-7
BaO
0-7
ZnO
0-10
Sb2O3
0-2
TiO2
0-5
The above composition allows for overlap with that claimed providing a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
While Goto’s crystallized glass can have a compressive stress layer on the surface (see entire document), they just don’t disclose a CT value. However, the following is noted.
Initially, as discussed above, Goto’s glass as modified meets that claim having a composition meeting Applicants.
Additionally, Goto’s glass thickness of 0.635mm (0092, 0138) falls within Applicants allowed for thickness range of 0.5mm or more (see published specification par 0093).
Further, Applicants disclose that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 1-stage or a 2-stage treatment (see published specification par 0096-0099 and 0101),
1stage
2-stage
600-800 or 630-770C
60-400min
1
450-750, 500-720 or 550-680C
30-2000 or 180-1440min
2
550-850 or 600-800C
30-600 or 60-400min
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 1-stage or 2-stage treatment (see published par 0105 and 0107 but note for the record that K, Na and Li salts are disclosed throughout as being that of KNO3, NaNO3 and LiNO3).
1stage
2-stage
K salt and/or Na salt and/or Li salt
350-550C
30-500min
1
K+Na salt, Na salt, or K+Na+Li salt
350-500C
1-1440, 15-500 or 30-300min
2
K salt or K+Na salt or K+Li salt or K+Na+Li salt
350-550C
1-1400 or 60-600min
Goto similarly discloses that their glass is made by first crystallizing the composition with the following 2-stage treatment (0064, 0126),
2-stage
1
450-620 or 520-620
1-20hr (60-1,200min)
2
620-800
0.5-10hr (30-600min)
and then ion exchanging the crystallized glass with the following 2-stage treatment (0087, 0136).
1-stage
NaNO3 salt,
300-600C
0.5-12hr (30-720min)
Given the similarities between that of Goto’s article structure and Applicants’, Goto’s crystallized glass having the same crystal phase, overlapping composition and thickness as Applicants and Goto’s method of making being substantially similar to Applicants’ using crystallization temps and durations as well as similar salts, temperatures and durations used in ion exchange, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same CT properties to result (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: Given that Goto’s crystallized glass meets that claimed, the glass transition properties would be expected to be the same (MPEP 2112).
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto or alternatively, in further view of any one of USPub20110151282, USPub20110135963, USPub20190300426, or USPub20200055764.
Regarding claim 7: Note that claim 7 is a product by process claim as it defines the use of a Li containing salt bath during manufacture and it has been held by the courts that while a product claim may be defined by a process, patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of manufacture. Specifically, if a product of the prior art meets the product claimed, the claim will be considered to be met regardless of whether or not the prior art uses a different method (MPEP 2113). In the instant case, as discussed above, ‘Goto teaches the product of claim 1 and as such, the claim is met.
However, in the instance Applicants argue and/or show that the process limitation of claim 7 provides additional structure to the article claimed, the following is noted.
Initially, Goto does not appear to place limits on salt baths used in their ion exchange step and instead, only generally teaches chemically strengthening their lithium containing crystallized glass using potassium and/or sodium salts.
As it is well known in the art of chemically strengthened lithium containing crystallized glass which are strengthened using potassium and/or sodium salts to add LiNO3 into the salt bath for a variety of benefits such as, but not limited to, providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening (see abstract and 0063 in ‘963 and 0080 in ‘282), poisoning the salt bath with the lithium salt to improve salt bath chemistry (see 0097 in ‘426 and 0094-0095 in ‘764), etc., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Goto to include LiNO3 in the ion exchange salt bath for providing uniform in-plane distribution in the strengthened compressive surface layer and suppression of change in glass shape after strengthening, improving bath chemistry, etc.
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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18024491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/024490 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/713168 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/834606 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 17/735055 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/114540 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/144511 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 19/475428 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and any additional limitations would have been rendered obvious in view of the prior art above.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights