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 Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 7/7/2025 has been entered. The claims 1-14 and 16-18 have been amended. The claims 1-18 are pending in the current application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 1 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 2 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 3 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 4 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 5 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 6 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 7 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 8 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 9 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 10 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 11 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 12 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 13 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 14 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 15 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 16 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 17 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Strandborg et al. US Patent No. 12,640,069. The claims at issue are identical, and therefore they are not patentably distinct. All of the claim limitations set forth in the Claim 18 of the instant application are not distinct from the claim limitations set forth in the patented claim 18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the claim made in this application, because it is not distinct from what has been claimed before.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIN CHENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/JIN CHENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights