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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/978,629, 18/481,515, 18/500,517, 18/650,586 and 19/976,748 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications fail to disclose autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition described in independent claims 1, 11 and 20. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8, 13-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 recite “a desired thrust”. “Desired” is a subjective term and the original disclosure gives no objective measure for determining what a desired thrust is. Additionally it is unclear if the desired thrust refers to the thrust demand recited in respective base claims 1 and 11 or an additional element. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination the desired thrust is assumed to refer to the thrust demand.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “the electric machine”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in these claims. Additionally it is not clear if these claims were intended to depend from respective claims 5 and 15, which would provide antecedent basis or claims 1 and 11 as written. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, these claims are interpreted as depending from claims 1 and 11 as written.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “thrust commands”. It is unclear if this is meant to refer to the thrust demand recited in respective base claims 1 and 11 or an additional element. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, this is assumed to refer to the thrust demand.
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 1-4, 11-14 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 27 of Application No. 18/976,748 (‘748) in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘748 teaches all the claim elements except a controller configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition.
Larsen teaches a controller (Figure 2) configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine (col. 2, ll. 18-19) in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition (col. 3, l. 61- col. 4, l. 2 describes the controller autonomously regulating performance of the engine based on the demanded thrust).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘748s invention to include a controller configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition in order to provide control of the engine with a high degree of accuracy and stability as suggested and taught by Larsen in col. 1, ll. 49-52.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to regulate a fuel flow rate supplied to the turbomachine based on the thrust demand (col. 6, ll. 13-31).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a thrust error between an actual thrust and a desired thrust (col. 5, ll. 45-57 describe determining the thrust error between actual and commanded thrust), and to convert the thrust error into a commanded change in power (col. 4, ll. 31-44 describes adjusting the fuel flow and thus the commanded change in power based on the thrust error).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a thrust error between a desired thrust and an actual thrust (col. 5, ll. 45-57 describe determining the thrust error between actual and commanded thrust), and adjust a commanded power output of the turbomachine based on the thrust error (col. 4, ll. 31-44 describes adjusting the fuel flow and thus the commanded power output based on the thrust error).
Regarding claim 11, claim 20 of ‘748 teaches all the claim elements except a controller configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition.
Larsen teaches a controller (Figure 2) configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine (col. 2, ll. 18-19) in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition (col. 3, l. 61- col. 4, l. 2 describes the controller autonomously regulating performance of the engine based on the demanded thrust).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘748s invention to include a controller configured to autonomously regulate performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition in order to provide control of the engine with a high degree of accuracy and stability as suggested and taught by Larsen in col. 1, ll. 49-52.
Regarding claim 12, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to regulate a fuel flow rate supplied to the turbomachine based on the thrust demand (col. 6, ll. 13-31).
Regarding claim 13, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a thrust error between an actual thrust and a desired thrust (col. 5, ll. 45-57 describe determining the thrust error between actual and commanded thrust), and to convert the thrust error into a commanded change in power (col. 4, ll. 31-44 describes adjusting the fuel flow and thus the commanded change in power based on the thrust error).
Regarding claim 14, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach the invention as claimed and described above. Larsen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a thrust error between a desired thrust and an actual thrust (col. 5, ll. 45-57 describe determining the thrust error between actual and commanded thrust), and adjust a commanded power output of the turbomachine based on the thrust error (col. 4, ll. 31-44 describes adjusting the fuel flow and thus the commanded power output based on the thrust error).
Regarding claim 20, claim 27 of ‘748 teaches all the claim elements except autonomously regulating performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition.
Larsen teaches autonomously regulating (Figure 2 shows logic system) performance of the gas turbine engine (col. 2, ll. 18-19) in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition (col. 3, l. 61- col. 4, l. 2 describes the controller autonomously regulating performance of the engine based on the demanded thrust).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify ‘748s invention to include autonomously regulating performance of the gas turbine engine in response to at least one of: a thrust demand, an energy efficiency target, or a flight profile condition in order to provide control of the engine with a high degree of accuracy and stability as suggested and taught by Larsen in col. 1, ll. 49-52.
Claims 5-6, 10 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 27 of Application No. 18/976,748 (‘748) in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042), and further in view of Botti et al. (US 2013/0147204).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to allocate power delivery between the turbomachine and an electric machine operatively coupled to a propeller shaft.
Botti teaches wherein the controller (Figure 6, 186) is configured to allocate power delivery (paragraph 21) between the turbomachine (Figure 4, 148) and an electric machine (142) operatively coupled to a propeller shaft (148).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to allocate power delivery between the turbomachine and an electric machine operatively coupled to a propeller shaft in order to ensure lower noise emissions as suggested and taught by Botti in paragraph 21.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen and Botti teach the invention as claimed and described above. Botti further teaches wherein the controller is configured to prioritize thrust generation from the electric machine during at least one of a descent, landing approach, or go-around procedure (paragraph 21 describes prioritizing the electric machine during landing).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen and Botti teach the invention as claimed and described above. Botti further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to autonomously select among a fuel-only propulsion mode, an electric-only propulsion mode, and a hybrid fuel-electric propulsion mode based on available energy reserves and a current flight phase (paragraph 21 describes the electric machine is used exclusively based on flight phase).
Regarding claim 15, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to allocate power delivery between the turbomachine and an electric machine operatively coupled to a propeller shaft.
Botti teaches wherein the controller (Figure 6, 186) is configured to allocate power delivery (paragraph 21) between the turbomachine (Figure 4, 148) and an electric machine (142) operatively coupled to a propeller shaft (148).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to allocate power delivery between the turbomachine and an electric machine operatively coupled to a propeller shaft in order to ensure lower noise emissions as suggested and taught by Botti in paragraph 21.
Regarding claim 16, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen and Botti teach the invention as claimed and described above. Botti further teaches wherein the controller is configured to prioritize thrust generation from the electric machine during at least one of a descent, landing approach, or go-around procedure (paragraph 21 describes prioritizing the electric machine during landing).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 27 of Application No. 18/976,748 (‘748) in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042), and further in view of Spinelli (US 7,689,328).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions.
Spinelli teaches wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions (claim 40 describes determining a route to an attainable landing area based on terrain, fuel capacity and burn rates and weather).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions in order to improve safety during an emergency situation as suggested and taught by Spinelli in col. 2, ll. 35-64.
Regarding claim 17, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions.
Spinelli teaches wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions (claim 40 describes determining a route to an attainable landing area based on terrain, fuel capacity and burn rates and weather).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to select a descent route to a landing destination based at least in part on terrain data, energy usage estimates, and weather conditions in order to improve safety during an emergency situation as suggested and taught by Spinelli in col. 2, ll. 35-64.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 27 of Application No. 18/976,748 (‘748) in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042), and further in view of Moehring et al. (US 3,834,160).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate, and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort.
Moehring teaches wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate (col. 1, ll. 53-68 describe considering passenger comfort based on acceleration), and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort (col. 2, ll. 28-34 describe adjusting the fuel flow and thus the thrust to avoid the rapid acceleration which causes passenger discomfort).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate, and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort in order to prevent a disturbing effect on passengers and crew as suggested and taught by Moehring in col. 1, ll. 53-68.
Regarding claim 18, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate, and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort.
Moehring teaches wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate (col. 1, ll. 53-68 describe considering passenger comfort based on acceleration), and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort (col. 2, ll. 28-34 describe adjusting the fuel flow and thus the thrust to avoid the rapid acceleration which causes passenger discomfort).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to evaluate passenger comfort based on predicted vertical acceleration or descent rate, and to modify thrust commands to improve passenger comfort in order to prevent a disturbing effect on passengers and crew as suggested and taught by Moehring in col. 1, ll. 53-68.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 27 of Application No. 18/976,748 (‘748) in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042), and further in view of Gilbert (US 2021/0291964).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed.
Gilbert teaches wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed (paragraph 35 describes the onboard flight controller executing a thrust reversal maneuver, i.e. command forward and reverse thrust, during landing maneuvers, i.e. landing rollout, in order to reduce ground speed, i.e. based on ground speed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed in order to save fuel as suggested and taught by Gilbert in paragraph 35.
Regarding claim 19, claim 20 of ‘748 in view of Larsen teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed.
Gilbert teaches wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed (paragraph 35 describes the onboard flight controller executing a thrust reversal maneuver, i.e. command forward and reverse thrust, during landing maneuvers, i.e. landing rollout, in order to reduce ground speed, i.e. based on ground speed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of ‘748 in view of Larsen’s invention to include wherein the controller is configured to autonomously command forward thrust and reverse thrust during landing rollout based on aircraft ground speed in order to save fuel as suggested and taught by Gilbert in paragraph 35.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12/196,131 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,290 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/083,195 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/098,613 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 19 of copending Application No. 19/098,642 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of copending Application No. 19/098,652 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 18 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/180,378 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/180,421 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18 of copending Application No. 19/180,687 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 19 of copending Application No. 19/180,742 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/194,896 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 21 of copending Application No. 19/194,975 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 21 of copending Application No. 19/194,999 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/299,724 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/317,285 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/317,457 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 19/317,584 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/358,481 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/445,929 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/457,294 in view of Larsen et al (US 4,248,042) in the same manner as described above. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights