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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 4/23/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The USC 102 and of 01/27/2026 have been withdrawn.
The claim objection is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable dependent on a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowances with respect to the prior art has been described in prior rejections and the parent applications, but additionally includes “the plurality of first stake implements being rotated concurrently by a common drive motor.”
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.
See the following table for the non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (see table below) of U.S. Patent No. US 12,345,098 B2/ US 20210310314 A1 / US 11066877 B2 in view of Deken (US 6,216,803) . Deken teaches the stakes both being rotated concurrently by a common drive motor/actuating a single drive system to drive the multiple stake implements into the ground at the same time.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (see table below) of U.S. Patent No. US 12,345,098 B2/ US 20210310314 A1 / US 11066877 B2 in view of Deken (US 6,216,803) and additionally in view of Felt (US 2009/0127001 A1). Felt teaches that the drive motor can include a gear drive.
Claim 10, 12, 17, and 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (see table below) of U.S. Patent No. US 12,345,098 B2/ US 11066877 B2 in view of Deken (US 6,216,803) and additionally in view of McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1). McGriff teaches a single hydraulic system teaches that the drive motor can include a gear drive.
Instant Application 19/255,432 current claims
Patent US 12,345,098 B2
Patent US 11,713,624 B2
Patent US 11,066,877 B2
1
Claim 1, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
Claim 1 and Deken (US 6,216,803); Claim 7 and Deken (US 6,216,803)
Claim 1 and 2 and Deken (US 6,216,803)
2
Claim 3, and Deken (US 6,216,804)
Claim 1 and Deken (US 6,216,803); Claim 7 and Deken (US 6,216,803)
Claim 1 and 2, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
3
Claim 3 and 4, and Deken (US 6,216,805)
Claim 1 and Deken (US 6,216,803); Claim 7 and Deken (US 6,216,803)
Claim 1 and 3, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
4
Claim 3 and 5, and Deken US (6,216,806)
Claim 1 and Deken (US 6,216,803); Claim 7 and Deken (US 6,216,803)
Claim 1 and 4, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
5
Claim 3 and 6, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 7 and 8, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
6
Claim 3, and Deken (US 6,216,804), and Felt (US 2009/0127001 A1)
Claim 1 and Deken (US 6,216,803) and Felt (US 2009/0127001 A1); Claim 7 and Deken (US 6,216,803) and Felt (US 2009/0127001 A1)
Claim 1 and 2 and Deken (US 6,216,803) and Felt (US 2009/0127001 A1)
7
Claim 7, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
8
Claim 7 and 8, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9-11, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
9
Claim 7 and 8, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
10
Claim 7 and 9, and Deken (US 6,216,807) , and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803) , and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
11
Claim 7 and 10, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 12, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
12
Claim 7 and 11, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803), and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
13
Claim 7, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
14
Claim 7 and 8, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
15
Claim 7 and 8, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
16
Claim 7 and 9, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9 and 10, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
17
Claim 7 and 9, and Deken (US 6,216,807), and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
Claim 9 and 11, and Deken (US 6,216,803) and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
18
Claim 7 and 10, and Deken (US 6,216,807)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803)
19
Claim 7 and 11, and Deken (US 6,216,803), and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
Claim 9, and Deken (US 6,216,803), and McGriff (US 6,497,296 B1)
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
/JENNIFER A RAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights