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 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 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,978,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter encompassed by the previously patented claims. Claim 11 recites a storage device comprising a panel, one fin structure and a binding device comprising a padding layer and clip combination associated with the fin structure where the padding layer comprising one of more openings and the clip is configured to clamp a substrate on the top surface of the layer. Claim 14 further defines the padding layer includes a gas pipe interconnected to the one or more openings to provide a vacuum suction. Furthermore, it is disclosed by the previous patent that each fin structure may be comprised of multiple fin structures and each fin structure should be configured similarly. Therefore, it is disclosed by the previously patented claim subject matter to provide a storage device of multiple fin structures as now claimed by the disclosed arrangement of the previously patented subject matter.
As to claims 2 and 8, the gas pipe of claim 14 is further disclosed to provide vacuum suction.
As to claim 3, claim 1 (parent of claim 11) defines a bottom surface of the padding layer attached to each fin structure.
As to claim 4, the gas pipe of claim 14 is disclosed as part of a gas extraction system.
As to claims 6-7 and 9, it is defined in claim 11 that an upper surface of the padding layer is configured to contact the edge portion of a substrate.
As to claim 8, the claimed storage device includes an enclosed volume.
As to claim 10, the claimed padding layer is disclosed to be rendered from two segments.
As to claims 11-13, the disclosed gas extraction system is disclosed to include a plurality of gas pipes.
As to claims 14 and 15, the claimed padding layer is disclosed to be formed of an elastic material and configured to encapsulate a protrusion via an elasticity associated with the elastic material.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,978,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter encompassed by the previously patented claims. Claim 5 further recites the padding layer attached to each fin structure via an adhesive, a tape or a mechanical part. Such is already recited in the patented claim 12. Therefore, it is disclosed and claimed by the previously patented claim subject matter to provide the padding layer as now claimed to be attached to each fin structure via an adhesive, a tape or a mechanical part.
Claims 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,978,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter encompassed by the previously patented claims. Claim 1, the parent of each of claims 2 and 7, recites a storage device comprising side panels (the two pluralities of panels), a plurality of fin structures disposed on inner surfaces of the side panels, and a binding device. Claim 2 recites the binding device configured to provide a vacuum suction to the plurality of fin structures. Claim 7 further recites a clip disclosed to provide pressure retention to a substrate. Therefore, it is disclosed by the previously patented claim subject matter to provide a storage device of a binding device and clip as now claimed by the disclosed arrangement of the previously patented subject matter.
As to claim 17, the previously recited clip is disclosed to be configured to move in a downward direction to bind the substrate to a fin structure.
As to claim 18, claim 2 further recites a control system configured to control movement of a binding device (by disclosure, a clip).
As to claim 19, the previously recited clip is disclosed to be formed of a plurality of segments of pads.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,978,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims may be wholly derived from the subject matter encompassed by the previously patented claims. Claim 6 further recites the vacuum suction provided through a plurality of openings in a fin structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Orlando Aviles, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG