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 .
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.
Claims1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,080. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to substantially the same structure and the claims of the instant application omit certain structural components or terms which would be a matter of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemtyshkin et al,. hereafter Nemtyshkin, US Patent Publication No. 2023/0148190.
Regarding claim 1, Nemtyshkin discloses a cassette (figures 4A and 4B for example) for deploying one or more anchors (480), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (470) in fluid communication with a pressure source (425); at least one anchor being positionable within the at least one socket (figure 4B); at least one slidable piston (620 which is disclosed as similar to the other pistons like in 4A/4B which is understood as the piston 620 is useable in a configuration like figure 4B for example) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (figure 4B and [0104] show the piston position and the function of the piston. Again, piston 620 is disclosed as similar to 420 and would necessarily function in the same manner); the slidable piston including a first, relatively rigid component (627) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (626); and a portion of the piston being seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (420 as in figure 4B with the understanding that 620 is positioned in the same manner with respect to the anchor).
Regarding claim 3, Nemtyshkin further discloses the slidable piston and the anchor each carry an alignment feature (figure 6A shows the forward end of 626 having a chamfered end and a smaller diameter than the body of the piston at 628. Figure 4B shows the piston and anchor aligned with each other and figures 7A and 7B show a view of the recessed rear end of the anchor that acts as an alignment feature), the respective alignment features being engageable with one another when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket to ensure proper alignment of the anchor within the socket (figure 4B shows the piston and anchor nesting with one another by means of a reduced diameter alignment feature on the piston and a recessed rear end alignment feature on the anchor)
Regarding claim 8, Nemtyshkin discloses a cassette (figures 4A and 4B for example) for deploying one or more anchors (480), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (470) in fluid communication with a pressure source (425); at least one anchor being positionable within the at least one socket (figure 4B); at least one slidable piston (620 which is disclosed as similar to the other pistons like in 4A/4B which is understood as the piston 620 is useable in a configuration like figure 4B for example) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (figure 4B and [0104] show the piston position and the function of the piston. Again, piston 620 is disclosed as similar to 420 and would necessarily function in the same manner); the slidable piston and the anchor each carry an alignment feature (figure 6A shows the forward end of 626 having a chamfered end and a smaller diameter than the body of the piston at 628. Figure 4B shows the piston and anchor aligned with each other and figures 7A and 7B show a view of the recessed rear end of the anchor that acts as an alignment feature), the respective alignment features being engageable with one another when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket to ensure proper alignment of the anchor within the socket (figure 4B shows the piston and anchor nesting with one another by means of a reduced diameter alignment feature on the piston and a recessed rear end alignment feature on the anchor)
Regarding claim 9, Nemtyshkin further discloses a portion of the piston is seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figure 4B)
Regarding claim 10, Nemtyshkin further discloses the slidable piston includes a first, relatively rigid component (627) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (626).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dillon Jr., hereafter Dillon, US Patent No. 7,412,975.
Regarding claim 1, Dillon discloses a cassette (figure 12-14 for example) for deploying one or more anchors (broadly, yet reasonably, 140 is an anchor. The specification states “anchor or pellet” and therefore the term in the claim is given the broadest interpretation and can be a pellet or projectile and meet the limitation), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (116) in fluid communication with a pressure source (100 via 126); at least one anchor (140) being positionable within the at least one socket (figures 12-14); at least one slidable piston (144) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (7:56-8:21); the slidable piston including a first, relatively rigid component (necked down portion of 144) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (wipers 146); and a portion of the piston being seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figures 12-14).
Regarding claim 6, Dillon further discloses the piston includes a pressure receiving cup (formed by rear surface of 144 and rear facing wipers 146) having a floor surface (rear surface of 144), and wherein the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup is spaced from the pressure source when a portion of the piston is seated against the pressure source (figures 12-13) so as to create a standoff space between the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup and the pressure source when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (standoff space formed by cup shape of the rear of the piston shown in figures 12 and 13 but not numbered).
Regarding claim 15, Dillon discloses a cassette (figure 12-14 for example) for deploying one or more anchors (broadly, yet reasonably, 140 is an anchor. The specification states “anchor or pellet” and therefore the term in the claim is given the broadest interpretation and can be a pellet or projectile and meet the limitation), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (116) in fluid communication with a pressure source (100 via 126); at least one anchor (140) being positionable within the at least one socket (figures 12-14); at least one slidable piston (144) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (7:56-8:21); the slidable piston including a first, relatively rigid component (necked down portion of 144) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (wipers 146); and the piston includes a pressure receiving cup (formed by rear surface of 144 and rear facing wipers 146) having a floor surface (rear surface of 144), and wherein the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup is spaced from the pressure source when a portion of the piston is seated against the pressure source (figures 12-13) so as to create a standoff space between the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup and the pressure source when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (standoff space formed by cup shape of the rear of the piston shown in figures 12 and 13 but not numbered).
Regarding claim 16, Dillon further discloses a portion of the piston is seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figures 12-14)
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldmann, US Patent No. 3,714,900.
Regarding claim 1, Feldmann discloses a cassette (barrel B with case 31 and propellant shown in figure 2, inter alia) for deploying one or more anchors (broadly, yet reasonably, 16 is an anchor. The specification states “anchor or pellet” and therefore the term in the claim is given the broadest interpretation and can be a pellet or projectile and meet the limitation), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (B) in fluid communication with a pressure source (propellant in case 31 shown in figure 2 and disclose din 4:1-32. The propellant is broadly, yet reasonably a pressure source as it generates gases for propelling the projectile); at least one anchor (16, broadly, yet reasonably) being positionable within the at least one socket; at least one slidable piston (10) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source (shown in figure 2, the piston is between the anchor and pressure source) such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (4:1-32 and figure 5); the slidable piston including a first, relatively rigid component (body of 10) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (12 disclosed as soft metal or plastic); and a portion of the piston being seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figure 2 and it is understood that figure 2 shows a state prior to the illustrated state in figure 4 in which the projectile is held in the chamber of the barrel and therefore positioned in the socket).
Regarding claim 6, Feldmann further discloses the piston includes a pressure receiving cup (30) having a floor surface (rear face of 30), and wherein the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup is spaced from the pressure source when a portion of the piston is seated against the pressure source so as to create a standoff space between the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup and the pressure source when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Feldmann discloses a cassette (barrel B with case 31 and propellant shown in figure 2, inter alia) for deploying one or more anchors (broadly, yet reasonably, 16 is an anchor. The specification states “anchor or pellet” and therefore the term in the claim is given the broadest interpretation and can be a pellet or projectile and meet the limitation), the cassette comprising: at least one socket (B) in fluid communication with a pressure source (propellant in case 31 shown in figure 2 and disclose din 4:1-32. The propellant is broadly, yet reasonably a pressure source as it generates gases for propelling the projectile); at least one anchor (16, broadly, yet reasonably) being positionable within the at least one socket; at least one slidable piston (10) positionable in the at least one socket between the anchor and the pressure source (shown in figure 2, the piston is between the anchor and pressure source) such that the slidable piston is propelled along the socket in response to a pressure wave generated by the pressure source to thereby expel the anchor from the socket (4:1-32 and figure 5); the slidable piston including a first, relatively rigid component (body of 10) coupled to a second, relatively pliable component (12 disclosed as soft metal or plastic); and the piston includes a pressure receiving cup (30) having a floor surface (rear face of 30), and wherein the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup is spaced from the pressure source when a portion of the piston is seated against the pressure source so as to create a standoff space between the floor surface of the pressure receiving cup and the pressure source when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Feldmann further discloses a portion of the piston is seated in intimate contact with a portion of the anchor when the anchor and piston are positioned within the socket (figure 2 and it is understood that figure 2 shows a state prior to the illustrated state in figure 4 in which the projectile is held in the chamber of the barrel and therefore positioned in the socket).
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemtyshkin in view of Cerovic et al., hereafter Cerovic, US Patent Publication No. 2022/026345.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Nemtyshkin discloses the pliable component and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a rubber material engaging the wall of the socket would necessarily provide a seal and slow movement; however, Nemtyshkin does not specifically disclose engagement of the outer diameter of the pliable component and the inner diameter of the socket partially retarding movement of the piston within the socket. Nonetheless, Cerovic teaches analogous art and specifically teaches a surface of the anchor base, which acts as a piston, that has a surface which produces differing frictional engagement with the surface of the socket and thus affects the speed at which the anchor travels int eh socket.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the surface of the piston of Nemtyshkin to engage the socket inner diameter in a manner similar to that as taught by Cerovic with a reasonable expectation of success in order to control the speed of the piston and anchor in the socket and therefore control the velocity of the anchors as taught by Cerovic for at least the reasons of producing consistent, reliable firing, ensuring safe use of the anchor firing weapon, etc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dillon.
Regarding claim 7, Dillon discloses the claimed invention except for the specific distance of the standoff space. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the standoff distance between 1 mm and 2 mm, since 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. A small standoff distance of 1mm to 2 mm ensures the space provided behind the piston is not too large and therefore requires a larger than necessary pressure source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641