DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreyfuss et al., hereinafter “Dreyfuss” (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359), cited in IDS filed 05/21/25.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Dreyfuss discloses an adjustable medical device (Figures 2-7) comprising:
a first tubular member (segment 36 with distal end 38) having a first proximal end and a first distal end;
a second tubular member (another segment 36 proximal of the first tubular member connected to housing 26) having a second proximal end and a second distal end;
a first connector ([0036]; releasable proximal end connection including “threads” on segment 36, which connects to other segments 36) affixed to the first proximal end and a second connector (corresponding releasable distal end connection threads) affixed to the second distal end, where the first connector and the second connector each have a plurality of splines and a plurality of slots (threads have helical ridges, or splines, with slots between each turn of the helical ridges which are wrapped around the connectors in order to convert rotational movement into linear movement; for example see Figure 6 where first tubular member/segment 36 with distal end 38 has at its proximal end an external connection which connects with an internal connection of the adjacent segment/second tubular member 36, wherein the connection can include external threads and internal threads, respectively) where both the plurality of splines and the plurality of slots extend helically along an axial direction to a free end of each of the first connector and the second connector, and where each spline in the plurality of splines is spaced apart from an adjacent spline by a slot from the plurality of slots (Id.); and
wherein in a partially joined configuration, the plurality of splines and the plurality of slots from the first connector nests respectively with the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines from the second connector (the helical ridges and slots of the threads nest respectively between the external threads and the internal threads), and where relative rotation in a first direction between the first connector and the second connector allows for engaging the first connector and the second connector in a fully joined configuration (the threaded segments 36 can be rotated such that they are fully coupled to each other), and where relative rotation in a second direction allows for uncoupling of the first connector and the second connector (for example, a segment 36 is threaded to another segment by rotating clockwise to a fully coupled position, and then can be rotated counterclockwise to uncouple).
Regarding claim 7, Dreyfuss discloses a hub 26 located at the second proximal end (Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, Dreyfuss discloses a third tubular member (a different length segment of the plurality of segments 36 that can connect to the segment 36 with the distal end 38; Figures 5-7, [0036], [0051]) having a third connector ([0036]; can include “threads”) affixed to a third distal end of the third tubular member, the third connector having a plurality of splines and a plurality of slots that are configured to nest with the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines of the first connector when the second connector is decoupled from the first connector (the helical ridges and slots of the threads nest respectively between the external threads and the internal threads), where a length of the third tubular member is different than a length of the second tubular member (see different lengths of segments 36 in Figures 5-7).
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.
Claims 1 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stouder, Jr., hereinafter “Stouder” (U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,344), cited in IDS filed 05/21/25, in view of Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Stouder discloses an adjustable medical device comprising:
a first tubular member (30 in Figures 1-3 or 130 in Figures 8-12) having a first proximal end and a first distal end;
a second tubular member (12 in Figures 1-3 or 170 in Figures 8-12) having a second proximal end and a second distal end;
a first connector (34 in Figure 6 or 134 in Figure 12) affixed to the first proximal end and a second connector (32 in Figure 6 or 132 in Figure 11) affixed to the second distal end, where the first connector and the second connector each have a plurality of splines and a plurality of slots (the connectors comprise complementary threaded surfaces, wherein the ridges/ribs include the plurality of splines and indentations between the ribs are the slots; col. 4, lines 47-50, col. 7, lines 16-18), where both the plurality of splines and the plurality of slots extend helically along an axial direction to a free end of each of the first connector and the second connector (screw threads have helical ridges and slots in order to convert rotational movement into linear movement), and where each spline in the plurality of splines is spaced apart from an adjacent spline by a slot from the plurality of slots (Id.); and
wherein in a partially joined configuration, the plurality of splines and the plurality of slots from the first connector nests respectively with the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines from the second connector (the helical ridges and slots of the threads nest respectively between the external threads and the internal threads), and where relative rotation in a first direction between the first connector and the second connector allows for engaging the first connector and the second connector in a fully joined configuration (the threaded connectors can rotated such that they are fully coupled to each other, such as in Figures 1 and 8), and where relative rotation in a second direction allows for moving the connectors back into partially joined configuration (such as in Figure 9).
However, Stouder does not disclose relative rotation in a second direction allow for uncoupling of the first connector and the second connector.
In the same field of art, namely adjustable medical devices, Dreyfuss teaches in [0036] releasable connections between a first connector and a second connector can be “threads”, which can be rotated in one direction to a fully joined configuration and rotated in a second direction for uncoupling of the first connector and the second connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the first and second connectors of Stouder to allow for uncoupling as claimed, as taught by Dreyfuss, in order to enable the length of the device to be adjusted to fit a particular procedure and patient with a different tubular member having a different length (Dreyfuss; [0010], [0036]). A skilled artisan would also acknowledge that uncoupling allows for cleaning or replacement of parts of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Stouder as modified teaches a hub 16 or 116 (Stouder; Figures 1, 8) located at the second proximal end.
Regarding claim 8, Stouder does not teach a third tubular member.
However, Dreyfuss teaches a third tubular member (a different length segment of the plurality of segments 36 that can connect to the segment 36 with the distal end 38; Figures 5-7, [0036], [0051]) having a third connector ([0036]; can include “threads”) affixed to a third distal end of the third tubular member, the third connector having a plurality of splines and a plurality of slots that are configured to nest with the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines of the first connector when the second connector is decoupled from the first connector (the helical ridges and slots of the threads nest respectively between the external threads and the internal threads), where a length of the third tubular member is different than a length of the second tubular member (see different lengths of segments 36 in Figures 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Stouder with a third tubular member as claimed, as taught by Dreyfuss, in order to further adjust the length of the device depending on a procedure and patient.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17, Stouder as modified teaches an end of at least one of the plurality of splines on the first connector comprises a tapered shape (see the ridges of the screw threads 34 or 134 that taper into crests/peaks in Stouder), wherein at least one of the plurality of slots of the second connector comprises a mating tapered shape to receive the tapered shape (see the indentations/valleys of the screw threads 32 or 132 that receive the crests/peaks).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Stouder as modified teaches the claimed device, as discussed above, except for an angle of the plurality of splines relative to an axis of the first connector is 45 degrees or greater. In [0011] of the present specification it states that “any angle is within the scope of this disclosure”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle of the plurality of splines to be 45 degrees or greater as claimed for the purpose of optimizing the degree of adjustment (finer or coarser depending on the threads/spline angle) for the length of the device, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 19-20, Stouder as modified teaches a flow occluding device 200 (Figure 9) having at least one flow occluding element (see distal end 206 that at least partially occludes the lumen of the device), wherein the flow occluding device is advanceable through the second distal end and the first connector such that the at least one flow occluding element 206 is positioned within the first tubular member 130 distal to the first connector 134 (Figure 9; col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 10-11), wherein the flow occluding device includes an alignment structure 208 that extends from the first connector 134 when decoupled from the second connector 132 (when the first connector 134 is decoupled from the second connector 132, as taught by Dreyfuss, an alignment structure [fins 208 in Figure 9 of Stouder] would extend proximally from the first connector 134, as seen in the position in Figure 9).
Regarding claims 14-15, Stouder as modified teaches an alignment device 200 (Figure 9) insertable in the first connector 134 and configured to align the second connector 132 to assume the partially joined configuration (fins 208 of device 200 allow a twisting force to be applied to first tubular member 130 which allows for relative rotation between threads 132, 134 and therefore alignment to a partially joined configuration as in Figure 9; col. 6, lines 61-65), wherein the alignment device comprises a shaft 204 that is sized to reduce or block fluid flow in the first connector (shaft at least partially occludes the lumen of the first connector).
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stouder (U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,344) in view of Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tolkoff et al., hereinafter “Tolkoff” (U.S. Patent No. 5,637,102), cited in IDS filed 05/21/25.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, Stouder as modified teaches the claimed device, as discussed above, except for a sleeve member positioned over the first connector and the second connector, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers at least a portion of the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines on both the first connector and the second connector to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is slidable over the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is configured to compress the first connector and the second connector.
Tolkoff teaches in Figures 4-6 a sleeve member (locking sleeve 60) positioned over a first connector 34 and a second connector 54, such that in a fully joined configuration (Figure 6), the sleeve member covers at least a portion of a plurality of slots and a plurality of splines/ridges on both the first connector and the second connector (see complementary ridges/slots connection between 34 and 54 in Figures 5-6) to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector (compression ring 144 of locking sleeve 60 compresses the first and second connectors such that it would prevent rotation between the connectors to a degree; col. 11, lines 7-16), where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector (in a similar embodiment shown in Figures 9-10, col. 13, lines 3-9, sleeve member can be removed by applying a force in the direction opposite of arrow B), where the sleeve member is slidable over the first connector and the second connector (in direction of arrow A or B in Figures 5 and 9), where the sleeve member is configured to compress the first connector and the second connector (via compression ring 144; Figures 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Stouder as modified to have a sleeve member as claimed, as taught by Tolkoff, in order to reinforce the connection and have a liquid-tight seal (Tolkoff; abstract).
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stouder (U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,344) in view of Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters (U.S. Patent No. 6,508,807), cited in IDS filed 05/21/25.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 5, Stouder as modified teaches the claimed device, as discussed above, except for a sleeve member positioned over the first connector and the second connector, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers at least a portion of the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines on both the first connector and the second connector to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is evertable over the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is wrapped over the first connector and the second connector.
Peters teaches a sleeve member 30 (Figures 4-5) positioned over a first connector 1 and a second connector 2, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers the coupling between both the first connector 2 and the second connector 1 to increase resistance to relative movement between the first connector and the second connector (sleeve member 30 encases the connectors and therefore prevents actuation and relative movement between the connectors), where the sleeve member is removable from the coupling to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector (sleeve member 30 is hinged 47 and latched 48/49 such that it may be unlatched and moved to an open position and removed; col. 3, lines 32-52), where the sleeve member is evertable over the first connector and the second connector (Id., when sleeve member 30 is moved to an open position, it is turned or rotated outward, or everted), where the sleeve member is wrapped over the first connector and the second connector (when sleeve member 30 is moved to a closed/latched position, it is wrapped over the connectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Stouder as modified to have a sleeve member as claimed, as taught by Peters, for additional security for the connectors and protection against infection (Id.).
It is noted that when combined with Stouder as modified, the resulting device sleeve member will increase resistance to relative rotation.
Claims 2, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359) in view of Tolkoff (U.S. Patent No. 5,637,102).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for a sleeve member positioned over the first connector and the second connector, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers at least a portion of the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines on both the first connector and the second connector to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is slidable over the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is configured to compress the first connector and the second connector.
Tolkoff teaches in Figures 4-6 a sleeve member (locking sleeve 60) positioned over a first connector 34 and a second connector 54, such that in a fully joined configuration (Figure 6), the sleeve member covers at least a portion of a plurality of slots and a plurality of splines/ridges on both the first connector and the second connector (see complementary ridges/slots connection between 34 and 54 in Figures 5-6) to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector (compression ring 144 of locking sleeve 60 compresses the first and second connectors such that it would prevent rotation between the connectors to a degree; col. 11, lines 7-16), where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector (in a similar embodiment shown in Figures 9-10, col. 13, lines 3-9, sleeve member can be removed by applying a force in the direction opposite of arrow B), where the sleeve member is slidable over the first connector and the second connector (in direction of arrow A or B in Figures 5 and 9), where the sleeve member is configured to compress the first connector and the second connector (via compression ring 144; Figures 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Dreyfuss to have a sleeve member as claimed, as taught by Tolkoff, in order to reinforce the connection and have a liquid-tight seal (Tolkoff; abstract).
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359) in view of Peters (U.S. Patent No. 6,508,807).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 5, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for a sleeve member positioned over the first connector and the second connector, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers at least a portion of the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines on both the first connector and the second connector to increase resistance to relative rotation between the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is removable from the plurality of slots and the plurality of splines to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is evertable over the first connector and the second connector, where the sleeve member is wrapped over the first connector and the second connector.
Peters teaches a sleeve member 30 (Figures 4-5) positioned over a first connector 1 and a second connector 2, such that in the fully joined configuration, the sleeve member covers the coupling between both the first connector 2 and the second connector 1 to increase resistance to relative movement between the first connector and the second connector (sleeve member 30 encases the connectors and therefore prevents actuation and relative movement between the connectors), where the sleeve member is removable from the coupling to permit decoupling of the first connector and the second connector (sleeve member 30 is hinged 47 and latched 48/49 such that it may be unlatched and moved to an open position and removed; col. 3, lines 32-52), where the sleeve member is evertable over the first connector and the second connector (Id., when sleeve member 30 is moved to an open position, it is turned or rotated outward, or everted), where the sleeve member is wrapped over the first connector and the second connector (when sleeve member 30 is moved to a closed/latched position, it is wrapped over the connectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Dreyfuss to have a sleeve member as claimed, as taught by Peters, for additional security for the connectors and protection against infection (Id.).
It is noted that when combined Dreyfuss, the resulting device sleeve member will increase resistance to relative rotation.
Claims 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreyfuss (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0354359) in view of Stouder (U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,344).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 17, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for an end of at least one of the plurality of splines on the first connector comprises a tapered shape, wherein at least one of the plurality of slots of the second connector comprises a mating tapered shape to receive the tapered shape.
In the same field of art, namely adjustable medical devices, Stouder teaches in Figures 1-3, 6 an end of at least one of a plurality of splines on a first connector comprises a tapered shape (see the ridges of the screw threads 34 or 134 that taper into crests/peaks), wherein at least one of the plurality of slots of a second connector comprises a mating tapered shape to receive the tapered shape (see the indentations/valleys of the screw threads 32 or 132 that receive the crests/peaks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill (at the time of invention) before the effective filing date to modify Dreyfuss with mating tapered shapes as claimed, as taught by Stouder, since it is a well-known structure configuration for threads, and doing so would be substitution of one known type of threads for another, which would yield predictable results, namely an adjustable and removable coupling. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for an angle of the plurality of splines relative to an axis of the first connector is 45 degrees or greater. In [0011] of the present specification it states that “any angle is within the scope of this disclosure”. Stouder teaches in Figures 1-3, 6, 8-12 complementary threads 32/34 or 132/134 having splines of a certain degree relative to an axis of the first connector. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the angle of the plurality of splines to be 45 degrees or greater as claimed for the purpose of optimizing the degree of adjustment (finer or coarser depending on the threads/spline angle) for the length of the device, and since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 19-20, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for a flow occluding device having at least one flow occluding element, wherein the flow occluding device is advanceable through the second distal end such that the at least one flow occluding element is positioned within the first tubular member distal to the first connector, wherein the flow occluding device includes an alignment structure that extends from the first connector when decoupled from the second connector.
Stouder further teaches a flow occluding device 200 (Figure 9) having at least one flow occluding element (see distal end 206 that at least partially occludes the lumen of the device), wherein the flow occluding device is advanceable through the second distal end and the first connector such that the at least one flow occluding element 206 is positioned within the first tubular member 130 distal to the first connector 134 (Figure 9; col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 10-11), wherein the flow occluding device includes an alignment structure 208 that extends from the first connector 134 when decoupled from the second connector 132 (when the first connector 134 is decoupled from the second connector 132, as taught by Dreyfuss, an alignment structure [fins 208 in Figure 9 of Stouder] would extend proximally from the first connector 134, as seen in the position in Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Dreyfuss with a flow occluding device as claimed, as taught by Stouder, in order to facilitate entry and positioning of the device into the body of a patient (Stouder; col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 50)
Regarding claims 14-15, Dreyfuss discloses the claimed device, as discussed above, except for an alignment device insertable in the first connector and configured to align the second connector to assume the partially joined configuration, wherein the alignment device comprises a shaft that is sized to reduce or block fluid flow in the first connector.
Stouder further teaches an alignment device 200 (Figure 9) insertable in the first connector 134 and configured to align the second connector 132 to assume the partially joined configuration (fins 208 of device 200 allow a twisting force to be applied to first tubular member 130 which allows for relative rotation between threads 132, 134 and therefore alignment to a partially joined configuration as in Figure 9; col. 6, lines 61-65), wherein the alignment device comprises a shaft 204 that is sized to reduce or block fluid flow in the first connector (shaft at least partially occludes the lumen of the first connector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Dreyfuss with an alignment device as claimed, as taught by Stouder, in order to facilitate entry and positioning of the device into the body of a patient (Id.).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that application claims 1-20 are encompassed by patent claims 1-20, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)272-6831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/DIANE D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights