DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the response filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 4/8/2026 has been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 & 103
Applicant's amendment filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
1. Pages 9 and 10
“The PTAB has held on many occasions that conclusory analysis (such as that provided in the Office Action) is not sufficient to satisfy an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
E.g., Ex parte Lei, Appeal 2023-003535 (February 28, 2025) at 9-11; Ex parte Mobile Tech Inc., Appeal 2022-001034 (February 11, 2022) at 7-16. Besides a high-level conclusory statement, the Office has not made any showing how the claims allegedly cause double patenting to arise. The Office has failed to provide any type of obviousness analysis required by the MPEP.
At least for these reasons, the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn and the present application should be allowed.“, any emphasis not shown.
Examiner’s response:
It is clearly apparent that the elements of the present claims are readable on the claims of the reference patents. Applicant should have fully understood why the claims are conflicting. This is not considered “cursory analysis”. Applicant is required to provide any difference in the claim scope, if any, for further consideration. Prosecution is closed and any new issue will be not considered/entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 4-6, 10-12 and 18-20 of patent No. 12267530, claims 4-6, 10-12 and 18-20 of patent No. 11736733 and claims 4-6, 12-14 and 20 of patent No. 111381842 (hereinafter reference patents); provisionally rejected over claims 3, 11 and 17 of copending application 19/073,826
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims of the present application are anticipated or considered obvious by the claims of the reference patents.
Regarding the claims 6-8 and 14-16 of the present application, they are obvious implementation that would have been expected by one of ordinary skilled in the art as compared to the claims of the reference patents.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. 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.
/JAE N NOH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights