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 filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued.
PNG
media_image1.png
182
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The preliminary amendment dated 3/17/2026 was not entered due to the state of preparation of the first office action, mail date 4/1/2026, i.e. the preliminary amendment and first office action effectively ‘crossed in the mail’ as the amendment was processed after the first office action was completed and being prepared for mail. See MPEP 714 & 37 CFR 1.115. The examiner notes that Applicant called the examiner and left a voicemail, however the examiner is unable to return international calls. Claims 8-13 will be treated as new claims.
Applicant has argued:
PNG
media_image2.png
396
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive, the drawings and reproduction above show the pixelation and degradation from greyscale drawings, note the text Fig. 2 appears as solid black without degradation seen in the rest of the figure.
Applicant has argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
203
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive. Applicant has moved limitations / alternative limitations from the independent claims in the patent to the new dependent claims in the present application. For example, in the present application the limitation mounting component is used in claim 1 while the patent states a lower flange or flow block for mounting. In the present application claim 2 states the mounting component is a lower flange; in the present application claim 3 states the mounting component is a flow block; etc. The examiner notes that applicant removed limitations that were not present in the patent, removing some of the minor differences between the claims and bringing them even more into alignment.
Applicant has argued:
PNG
media_image4.png
154
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive. The terminal disclaimer filed 7/31/2026 was denied and the application is presently not subject to a terminal disclaimer. See terminal disclaimer review decision dated 8/11/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are grey scale and of poor line quality. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 11-12 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,429,049. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Note: Applicant has moved limitations / alternative limitations from the independent claims in the patent to the new dependent claims in the present application.
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, 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,429,049. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are only broader/narrower than the patented claims. Under the same logic that a narrower species will always anticipate the broader genus (MPEP §2131.02, subsection 1), and that a generic disclosure will anticipate a claimed species covered by that disclosure even when the reference describes the limitations but does not expressly spell out the limitations (MPEP §2131.02, subsection III), claims which are only narrower cannot be held patentably distinct from claims which are only broader.
Present claims 1, 5-8 is/are only broader/narrower than patented claims 1-13 through their alternative shifting of independent/dependent limitations (e.g. claim 1 of the present application is broader than patented claim 1 by generically reciting “mounting component” where patent claim 1 recites a flange or flow block; etc…) and overlapping alternative limitations and/or nomenclature (e.g. flange / flow block; portion having a wall thickness greater than the lubricator body wall thickness / widest and lowest portion of the lubricator; etc…).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-4808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 2:00-10:00 PM EDT.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/David Carroll/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights