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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application is unpatentable under judicially created doctrine of “obviousness-type” double patenting with respect to claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12294436.
Claims 1-20 of instant application defines the obvious variation of U.S. Patent No. 12294436.
The assignee of all applications is same.
Claim 1 of instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 1 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
To the extent that the instant claims are obvious variation and therefore generic to the claimed invention of 12294436 Patent.
In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application
Claim 2 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 2 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 of instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 3 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 of instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 4 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 5 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application.
Claim 6 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 6 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 7 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 7 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 8 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 9 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 10 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 11 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 11 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 12 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 12 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 13 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 13 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application.
Claim 14 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 14 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim 15 of instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 15 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 15 of the instant application. Claim 15 of instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 16 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 16 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 17 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 17 of the instant application.
Claim 18 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 18 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 18 of the instant application.
Claim 19 of instant application is anticipated by the patent claim 19 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 19 of the instant application. Claim 19 of instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 20 of instant application is further anticipated by the patent claim 20 in that claim of the patent contains all the limitations of claim 20 of the instant application.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG S AHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah Wang can be reached on 571-272-9018. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SUNG S AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2631 (571)-270-3706
sung.ahn@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights