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 and 18/481,515, 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 the hub comprises a titanium alloy. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites “a unducted fan” and should recite “an unducted fan”.
Claim 7, lines 1-2 recites “wherein the Fe, Si, Mo om the titanium alloy” and should recite “wherein the Fe, Si, Mo in the titanium alloy”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12,410,753 (‘753) in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘753 teaches a gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section arranged in serial flow order, the compressor section having a high pressure compressor defining a high pressure compressor exit area (AHPCExit) in square inches; and
wherein the gas turbine engine defines a redline exhaust gas temperature (EGT) in degrees Celsius, a total sea level static thrust output (FnTotal) in pounds, and a corrected specific thrust, wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 42 and less than or equal to 90, the corrected specific thrust determined as follows: FnTotal x EGT / (AHPCExit2 x 1000).
Claim 1 of ‘753 is silent on a unducted fan including an array of fan blades coupled to a hub, wherein the hub comprises a titanium alloy.
Woodfield teaches a unducted fan (paragraphs 3 and 84, Figure 2, 50) including an array of fan blades (60) coupled to a hub (80), wherein the hub comprises a titanium alloy (paragraph 28).
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 ‘753s invention to include a unducted fan including an array of fan blades coupled to a hub, wherein the hub comprises a titanium alloy in order to provide strength and foreign object damage tolerance as suggested and taught by Woodfield in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy is Ti-17 or Ti-6246 (paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy comprises:
5.50 wt% to 6.90 wt% aluminum (paragraph 25 describes 6-7 wt%);
3.50 wt% to 4.50 wt% vanadium (paragraph 25 describes 3.5-4.5 wt%);
0.01 wt% to 0.03 wt% carbon (paragraph 25 describes .01-1 wt%);
0.20 wt% to 0.70 wt% iron (paragraph 25 describes .1-.6 wt%);
1.00 wt% to 1.50 wt% molybdenum (paragraph 25 describes .5-1.5 wt%);
0.10 wt% to 0.30 wt% silicon (paragraph 25 describes .1-2 wt%);
up to 0.21 wt% oxygen (paragraph 25 describes up to .3 wt%);
up to 0.016 wt% nitrogen (paragraph 25 up to .05 wt%); and
a balance of titanium (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the Al, O, Fe, Si, Mo in the titanium alloy are present in amounts that result in a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength ≥1000 MPa according to the formula: 469.3 + 48.8*Al (wt%) + 748*O (wt%) + 96.1*Fe (wt%) + 188*Si (wt%) + 57.7*Mo (wt%) (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength of 1164 MPa).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the Fe, Si, Mo om the titanium alloy are present in amounts that result in a predicted 23 °C % plastic elongation ≥15.0% according to the formula: 10^(1.149 + 0.211*Fe (wt%) – 0.514*Si (wt%) + 0.076*Mo (wt%)) (the alloy containing .6 wt% Fe, .1 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C % plastic elongation of 21.8%).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy has a 0.2% yield strength of 1000 MPa to 1380 MPa (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength of 1164 MPa), and wherein the titanium alloy has a plastic elongation of 15.0% to 30.0% (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a plastic elongation of 17.2%).
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy has an ultimate tensile strength of 1060 MPa to 1450 MPa (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength of 1164 MPa).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy has a ballistic impact resistance measured by a crack length of 3.048 mm or less (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this ballistic impact resistance if appropriate methods of production are used).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the hub has a reduction in area that is 45 %RA or greater (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this RA if appropriate methods of production are used).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the hub has a reduction in area that is 45 %RA to 75 %RA (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this RA if appropriate methods of production are used).
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy has a 0.2% yield strength of 1000 MPa to 1380 MPa (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength of 1164 MPa), an ultimate tensile strength of 1060 MPa to 1450 MPa (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this ultimate tensile strength if appropriate methods of production are used), a ductility of 15.0% to 30.0% (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this ductility if appropriate methods of production are used), and a reduction in area that is 45 %RA to 75 %RA (The material properties of an alloy are dependent on the elements in the alloy and the method by which the component is produced, i.e. whether heat treatments or shot peening, etc. have been performed, the alloy described in claim 5 is capable of having this RA if appropriate methods of production are used).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy is substantially free from copper (paragraph 79 describes “the alloy contains silicon, copper, or both silicon and copper”, i.e. the alloy can be made with silicon and no copper).
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy is substantially free from chromium, tin, nickel, zirconium, and tungsten (paragraph 25 describes tin, zirconium and tungsten as optional elements in the alloy, i.e. the alloy can be free from them, and is silent on chromium and nickel with titanium making up the balance of the alloy, so there is no chromium or nickel in the alloy).
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy is substantially free from any other elements (paragraph 25 describes the only the elements listed in claim 5 and optional elements, which can be left out of the alloy).
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the Al, O, Fe, Si, Mo are present in the titanium alloy in amounts that result in a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength ≥1000 MPa according to the formula: 469.3 + 48.8*Al (wt%) + 748*O (wt%) + 96.1*Fe (wt%) + 188*Si (wt%) + 57.7*Mo (wt%) (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a predicted 23 °C 0.2% yield strength of 1164 MPa), and wherein the Fe, Si, Mo are present in amounts that result in a predicted 23 °C % plastic elongation ≥ 15.0% according to the formula: 10^(1.149 + 0.211*Fe (wt%) – 0.514*Si (wt%) + 0.076*Mo (wt%)) (the alloy containing 6.9 wt% Al, .21 wt% O, .6 wt% Fe, .3 wt% Si and 1.5 wt% Mo has a plastic elongation of 17.2%).
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy comprises 3.80 wt% to 4.43 wt% vanadium (paragraph 25 describes 3.5-4.5 wt%, e.g. 4.0 wt% vanadium).
Regarding claim 19, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy comprises 0.45 wt% to 0.57 wt% iron (paragraph 25 describes .1-.6 wt%, e.g. .5 wt% iron).
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach the invention as claimed and described above. Woodfield further teaches wherein the titanium alloy comprises 0.14 wt% to 0.28 wt% silicon (paragraph 25 describes .1-2 wt%, e.g. .2 wt% silicon).
Claims 2-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12,410,753 (‘753) in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) and Schimmels et al. (US 2023/0043809).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 28 feet.
Schimmels teaches wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 28 feet (paragraph 134).
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 the invention of ‘753 in view of Woodfield to include wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 28 feet in order to provide a higher bypass ratio and thus increase specific fuel consumption.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Woodfield teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 18 feet.
Schimmels teaches wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 18 feet (paragraph 134).
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 the invention of ‘753 in view of Woodfield to include wherein the unducted fan defines a fan diameter of at least 10 feet and up to 18 feet in order to provide a higher bypass ratio and thus increase specific fuel consumption.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,107 (‘107) in view of in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,992 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/033,042 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,980 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,244 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,124 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,152 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,134 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,645 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,619 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,668 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,637 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,734 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/069,982 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/070,161 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/083,161 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/194,584 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,793 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,808 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,722 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,777 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,742 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,827 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,801 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,903 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,221 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,310 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/254,227 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,761 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,709 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,747 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,574 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,587 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,541 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,636 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,588 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,611 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,970 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,850 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,833 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/348,974 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,727 in view of Woodfield et al. (US 2023/0392247) in the same manner as described above.
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