DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the preamble recites “The device of clam 2 wherein…” However, it appears that the preamble should instead recite “The device of claim 2 wherein…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 5-24 and 27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “…such that respective said heights of said heights of said platform are adapted to be set.” Claim 1 introduces “a height of said platform.” The plural term “said heights” lacks proper antecedent basis and creates ambiguity as to whether a singular height is being adjusted to different levels, or if multiple heights exist simultaneously. To overcome this rejection, the claim should instead recite “such that respective heights…” or “such that the height…”
Regarding claims 6-24, these claims are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 5.
Further regarding claim 25, the claim recites “a base adapted to receive a container having an opening.” Claim 1 already references “a container” in its functional language. Re-introducing “a container” in claim 25 creates ambiguity. It is unclear if the container in claim 25 is a second, distinct container, or the same one referenced in claim 1. To overcome this rejection, it is recommended to amend the claim such that the claim recites “adapted to receive the container…” to link back to the language of claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “such that respective said distances between said base and said platform are adapted to be set.” However, claim 26 introduces “an adjustable distance.” The plural phrase “said distances” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, it is recommended that the claim be amended to recite “such that respective distances…”
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 1-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application acts as a broader, generic variation of claim 1 of the parent patent. Parent claim 1 requires a device comprising a base, an adjustable support wall, a platform with an opening, a lever, and a ram. Claim 1 of the instant application removes the explicit structural requirements for “a base” and “a support wall,” claiming the “adjustable height” of the platform generically, while retaining the platform, lever, and ram. Because the instant claim 1 drops limitations found in the parent claim, it is broader in scope. Therefore, a device built to fully comply with the specific requirements of Parent claim 1 (which includes the base and adjustable support wall) would perfectly anticipate the broader limitations of instant claim 1 (which merely requires the height of the platform to be adjustable by any means). Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the parent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections are overcome, claims 1-29 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights