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 Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 4/2/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 12 are found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections made over the combination of McCullen et al., WO 2012/080706. (US 9,393, 097 is the reference cited in the previous rejection) in view of Everland et al., US 2012/0165957. Specifically, the combination of cited prior art does not teach the limitation of wherein “the first non-woven fiber composition and the second non-woven fiber composition are commingled”. As such, this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Double Patenting
2. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 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.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.10632228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought is encompassed by the subject matter of U.S. Patent No.10632228.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-48 of U.S. Patent No.11826487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought is encompassed by the subject matter of U.S. Patent No.11826487.
Claims 1-20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-10 of co-pending Application No. 18489661 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought is encompassed by the subject matter of co-pending Application No. 18489661.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 19239805 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought is encompassed by the subject matter of co-pending Application No. 19239805.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 19239809 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought is encompassed by the subject matter of co-pending Application No. 19239809.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
3. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights