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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,479 (Patent ‘479, hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are already included in claims 1, 3, 6, 7 of Patent ‘479. See Tables below.
Table I:
Current Application 19/061923
U.S. Patent No. 12,260,479
1, 3, 5, 6
1, 3, 6, 7, respectively
Table II:
Current Application 19/061923
U.S. Patent No. 12,260,479
1. A system comprising a set of processors and a set of input devices, the set of processors programmed to:
a. receive a selection or an entry of a numeration of sides;
b. set edge elements, angle elements, and arrangement data using the numeration of the sides;
i. with each edge element in the set of edge elements having a length, a midpoint, and a normal, with the normal having directionality;
ii. with the arrangement data designating the arrangement of each edge element and each angle element for each shape element;
c. display a first shape element based on the edge elements, and angle elements,
d. receive a selection via the set of input devices of a first edge element of the first shape element, a first edge element of a second shape element, and an attachment script;
e. then execute the attachment script, with the attachment script comprising the steps of:
i. using arrangement data of the first and second shape elements, orient the second shape element so that:
1. the directionalities of the normals of the edge elements of the first and second shape elements are opposing;
2. the normals of the edge elements of the first and second shape elements converge;
3. the edge elements of the first and second shape elements converge or are at least temporarily fixed in parallel and such that two end points of the first edge element fall on two lines and two end points of the second edge element fall on the same two lines, with the two lines each being perpendicular to both the first and second edge elements.
1. A system comprising a set of processors and a set of input devices, the set of processors programmed to:
a. store a shape element database, the shape element database comprising a set of shape elements, with each shape element having a set of shape element parameters, the shape element parameters including a set of edge element for each shape element, a set of angle elements for each shape element, a sizing parameter for each shape element, and a set of arrangement data designating the arrangement of each edge element and each angle element for each shape element, with each edge element in the set of edge elements having a length, a midpoint, and a normal, with the normal having directionality;
b. store an element manipulation database, the element manipulation database comprising a set of element manipulation scripts, with the set of element manipulation scripts including an attachment script and a multiplication script;
c. receive a selection via the set of input devices of an edge element of a first shape element, an edge element of a second shape element, and the attachment script;
d. then execute the attachment script, with the attachment script comprising the steps of:
i. using arrangement data of the first and second shape elements, orient the second shape element so that:
1. the directionalities of the normals of the edge elements of the first and second shape elements are opposing;
2. the normals of the edge elements of the first and second shape elements converge;
3. the edge elements of the first and second shape elements converge or are at least temporarily fixed in parallel and such that two end points of the first edge element fall on two lines and two end points of the second edge element fall on the same two lines, with the two lines each being perpendicular to both the first and second edge elements;
e. receive a selection via the set of input devices of a first edge element of a third shape element, a second edge element of the third shape element, the multiplication script, and a multiplier;
f. then execute the multiplication script, with the multiplication script comprising the steps of:
i. creating a number of copies of the third shape element, with each copy of the third shape element having shape element parameters matching shape element parameters of the third shape element, with the number of copies corresponding to the multiplier;
ii. arranging copies so that the second edge element of a copy undergoes attachment to the first edge element of the third shape element, and the first edge element of other copies undergoes attachment to the second edge element of another copy.
From the tables above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1, 3, 6, 7 of Patent ‘479 to be as current claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 since all of the features of current claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are already included in claims 1, 3, 6, 7 of Patent ‘479.
Claims 8-10, which are similar in scope to claims 1, 3, and 6 of Patent ‘479, are thus rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting under the same rationale.
Claims 12-14, which are also similar in scope to claims 1, 3, and 6 of Patent ‘479, are thus rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax 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).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
