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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 20 AUGUST 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3-4, and 28 have been acknowledged.
Pending Claims: 1, 3-4, 10-12, and 17-30
Withdrawn Claims: 29-30
Cancelled Claims: 2, 5-9, and 13-16
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn and new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 20 AUGUST 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 1, that Witelson teaches that the fluid spraying opening is located on a body wall and not on an outer cover plate that protects the wheel mechanisms and a simple location on the side would not make it obvious to have the jets run through a cover plate for wheels (Arguments filed 20 AUGUST 2026, Page 11, Paragraph 2 to Page 13, Paragraph 3). Therefore, instant claim 1 is allowable. Applicant’s argument is persuasive, however it is made moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Another piece of prior art by Witelson (Referenced as Shay to avoid confusion) has been found that more clearly describes a fluid spraying mechanism that goes through a cover plate covering wheel mechanisms on the side of a pool cleaning robot. Therefore, instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach an outer cover plate configured to cover at least the two moving wheels of a moving mechanism (Arguments filed 20 AUGUST 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 3). Therefore, instant claim 1 is allowable. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Zhang teaches a cover plate for the wheels in Figs. 2-4B, with a contrast to Figs. 5-9 which do not show the cover plates in order to better show the internals of the robot. See Fig. 2 vs Fig. 5 below for the teaching of the cover plate for the wheels. Zhang does not explicitly call out the cover plate in the specification, but the figures clearly demonstrate a cover plate for the wheels. Therefore, instant claim 1 is not allowable.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
644
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 29-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 29 and 30 have been withdrawn and need to have the proper parenthetical designation of, for example, (Withdrawn – Currently Amended) or (Withdrawn – Previously Presented). See MPEP 714(II)(C).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 17-19, 21, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Chinese Patent Application No. CN 117120696 A (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Witelson et al, US Patent Application No. US 20190032356 A1 (hereinafter Shay).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a pool cleaning robot (i.e., a swimming pool robot, comprising; Paragraph n0001)
with a body (i.e., a body; Fig. 2),
two tracks (i.e., two moving mechanisms; Fig. 2, #130) that drive the movement of the pool robot on the bottom wall and are located on the sides of the pool robot (i.e., disposed on two sides of the body, wherein the two moving mechanisms are configured to drive the swimming pool robot to move on a bottom of a swimming pool and/or a wall of the swimming pool, the two moving mechanisms comprising a first moving mechanism and a second moving mechanism; Fig. 6A, #310; Paragraphs n0058-n0059), the tracks include two wheels on each side (i.e., the first moving mechanism comprising two moving wheels; Figs. 2 and 5, #130) with a cover plate shown in Fig. 2 covering the wheels (i.e., and an outer cover plate configured to cover at least the two moving wheels of the first moving mechanism; Fig. 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
622
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
three thrusters (i.e., a propulsion assembly, wherein the propulsion assembly comprises; Figs. 2 and 5, #120, 112)
which can be seen to have the inlet and outlet located in line and on the side of the swimming pool robot such that water flows through the thruster independently of other flow paths of the swimming pool robot and is located on the housing of the swimming pool robot, which is located on the tracks (i.e., a flow channel comprising a first inlet and a fluid spraying opening, the fluid spraying opening being disposed on the first moving mechanism; Figs. 2 and 5, Paragraphs n0041, n0053),
and includes an impeller (i.e., a first impeller disposed inside the flow channel; Paragraph n0055)
and a motor assembly (i.e., and a first motor configured to drive the first impeller to rotate thereby forming a first water path defined by the first inlet, the flow channel, and the fluid spraying opening, fluid being driven through the first water path by the first impeller; Paragraph n0055),
wherein the swimming pool robot has a dust box that includes a filter disposed inside the body (i.e., a filtering box at least partially disposed inside the body; Fig. 9, # 410; Paragraph n0080),
with an inlet for the dust box (i.e., a second inlet; Fig. 9, #412) located on the bottom of the body (i.e., disposed on a bottom portion of the body; Paragraph n0074),
an outlet (i.e., an outlet; Fig. 9, #142) located on the top of the body (i.e., at least partially disposed on a top portion of the body; Paragraph n0063),
and a main water pump (i.e., a main water pump; Fig. 9, #140) that draws water from one or more inlets and discharges it from the outlet, seen to be located within the swimming pool robot (i.e., disposed inside the body, thereby forming a second water path defined by the second inlet, the filtering box, and the outlet, fluid being driven through the second water path by the main water pump; Fig. 9; Paragraph n0063),
wherein the thrusters (#120) are located externally and thus do not interact with the main water pump making the thruster water path separate and bypassing the filtering box (i.e., the first water path is separate from the second water path, and the first water path bypasses the filtering box; Figs. 2, 4A, 4B, 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, 8).
Zhang also teaches multiple thrusters and that they are known to be installed in various positions and that both vertical and horizontal driving forces are contemplated with the thrusters controlling the direction of propulsion for steering with the preferred location of the horizontal thrusters being below the flotation devices so that the thrusters are not above the water when the swimming pool robot is cleaning the surface of the pool (Paragraphs n0051-n0057).
Zhang does not teach the fluid spraying opening being disposed on the outer cover plate of the first moving mechanism.
However, Shay teaches a left sideway facing grille (Fig. 9, #250) and a right sideway facing grille that may flow through an opening in the tracks housing side covers (i.e., the fluid spraying opening being disposed on the outer cover plate of the first moving mechanism; Fig. 9, #259; Paragraph 0105) for the purpose of automatic programmed navigation maneuvering (Paragraphs 0088, 0098, 0101, 0107).
Shay is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a pool cleaner robot (Abstract, Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the pool cleaning robot as taught by Zhang to have sideways thrusters that path through the cover plate of the wheels because the sideways grilles would aid in automatic programmed navigation maneuvering.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang further teaches that the tracks include two wheels on each side with a track wrapping them that forms a region between these elements (i.e., wherein the first moving mechanism comprises a track wrapped around the two moving wheels, a region being formed between the track and the two moving wheels; Figs. 2 and 5, #130).
Shay further teaches a left sideway facing grille (Fig. 9, #250) and a right sideway facing grille that may flow through an opening in the tracks housing side covers (i.e., at least a portion of the flow channel is located in the region; Fig. 9, #259; Paragraph 0105)
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang further teaches that the tracks include two wheels on each side with a track wrapping them that forms a region between these elements with a cover plate shown in Fig. 2 covering the wheels (i.e., wherein the second moving mechanism comprises two moving wheels and an outer cover plate configured to cover at least the two moving wheels of the second moving mechanism; Fig. 2, #130)
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang further teaches a handle located on the top of the swimming pool robot (i.e., further comprising a handle configured to allow a user to lift the swimming pool robot; Fig. 7B), seen below. Without exact dimension, it is unclear whether the handle is closer to one of the three thrusters (112, 120) or the dust box opening (412), but the handle appears to be closer to the central thruster than to the dust box opening, also seen below (i.e., wherein the flow channel is closer to the handle than the second inlet or the filtering box; Fig. 7B).
PNG
media_image3.png
732
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the flow channel is closer to the handle than the second inlet or the filtering box. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang further teaches the inclusion of a detection component that includes taking images of the target swimming pool (i.e., further comprising at least one of at least one image capturing part configured to capture an image; Paragraph n0091).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang further teaches that the thrusters have an outer covering forming a mostly cylindrical shape (i.e., comprising a first cavity; Fig. 2, #120) which contains the impeller and forms a cavity through which the water flows through the thruster (i.e., wherein the first water path is further defined by the first cavity; Paragraph n0053) and the dust box (i.e., and a second cavity; Fig. 9, #410) forms another cavity that water is filtered through and contains garbage (i.e., at least a portion of the filtering box is disposed in the second cavity, and the second water path is further defined by the second cavity; Paragraph n0072).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang further teaches a main water pump inlet (Fig. 7A, #141) which can be used to discharge liquid by switching the function of the main water pump (i.e., comprising a second liquid discharge opening; Paragraph n0064) wherein all of the fluid paths are in fluid communication by having outlets disposed around the swimming pool robot such that water of the pool may freely flow between the fluid paths (i.e., providing fluid communication between the second cavity and the first cavity; Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang further teaches the main water pump outlet (i.e., a first liquid outlet; Fig. 7A, #142) located on the dust box (i.e., disposed on the second cavity)
wherein the main water pump inlet (i.e., a second liquid outlet; Fig. 7A, #141) located on the bottom of the swimming pool robot (i.e., disposed on the bottom portion of the body) can be used to discharge liquid by rotating the main water pump in the opposite direction such that the main water pump outlet draws in water (i.e., wherein, when the swimming pool robot is in a water exit mode, the second cavity, the first liquid outlet, and the second liquid outlet are sequentially in fluid communication to form a third water path configured to discharge liquid from the body when the swimming pool robot is in the water exit mode; Paragraph n0064).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhang further teaches that the main water pump includes an impeller and motor assembly (i.e., wherein the main water pump comprises a second impeller and a second motor configured to drive the second impeller to rotate; Paragraph n0064).
Regarding Claim 27, Zhang further teaches the main water pump (Fig. 7B, #140) has a cover (i.e., a cover body) with an inlet to the pump (i.e., a second liquid discharge opening configured to provide fluid communication between the filtering box and the main water pump) and outlet, seen in Fig. 7B below, where the cover of the pump will be sealed on both sides (i.e., a first end of the cover body sealingly covers the second liquid discharge opening, and a second end of the cover body sealingly covers the outlet). Pumps require a sealed connection for several reasons, including maintaining operating pressure and preventing leaks.
PNG
media_image4.png
726
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Zhang further teaches the fluid spraying opening of the first thruster is located on the top of the body (i.e., the fluid spraying opening communicates with an exterior of the body through one of; Fig. 5, #112) and can be seen to have a grill disposed upon it (i.e., a grill disposed on the fluid spraying opening; Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
532
532
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shay further teaches a left and right sideway facing grille that flows through an opening in the tracks housing side covers (i.e., the fluid spraying opening communicates with an exterior of the body through one of an avoidance hole disposed on the outer cover plate; Fig. 9; Paragraph 0105).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shay as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Boss, US Patent Application No. US 20180001981 A1 (hereinafter Boss).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang in view of Shay does not teach at least one fill light configured to adjust brightness of at least part of the at least one image capturing part.
However, Boss teaches that a hull may comprise a camera (Fig. 7, #62) located behind a window (Fig. 2, #66) and between lights (i.e., at least one fill light; Fig. 2, #64) with the lights being positioned near the camera and facing the same direction for the purpose of illuminating the photo/video target area with the ability to provide variable intensity lighting (i.e., configured to adjust brightness of at least part of the at least one image capturing part; Paragraph 0041).
Boss is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to marine technology including remotely controlled vehicles and devices that operate underwater (Paragraphs 0002-0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the swimming pool cleaning robot as made obvious by Zhang in view of Shay with the lights as taught by Boss because the lights would illuminate the camera area with variable intensity lighting.
Claims 20, 22-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shay as applied to claims 19 and 21 above, and further in view of Hanan et al, US Patent Application No. US 20170356212 A1 (hereinafter Hanan).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang in view of Shay does not teach comprising a baffle plate rotatably disposed on the body, the baffle plate having a first state in which the baffle plate blocks the second liquid outlet and a second state in which the baffle plate does not block at least a portion of the second liquid outlet.
However, Hanan teaches a lower discharge opening (i.e., the second liquid outlet; Fig. 4, #44) which is normally closed by a covering (i.e., a baffle plate; Fig. 4, #45) using magnetic or mechanical means seen to be able to attach at one side and rotate open/closed (i.e., rotatably disposed on the body) and can be actuated by pressure or electronic control signals (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0054) for the purpose of covering an alternate opening to the main water pump so that the main water pump can aid in the propulsion of the swimming pool robot such that it can rise from the floor of a pool to the waterline for retrieval by a user (i.e., the baffle plate having a first state in which the baffle plate blocks the second liquid outlet and a second state in which the baffle plate does not block at least a portion of the second liquid outlet; Paragraph 0057) without going through the filter (Fig. 7, #90, Paragraph 0047).
Hanan is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a pool cleaner (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the main water pump inlet of the swimming pool robot made obvious by Zhang in view of Shay with the cover as taught by Hanan because the cover would allow the main water pump to aid in propulsion that directs the swimming pool robot to the surface without pushing water backwards through the filter.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang further teaches a microcontroller included in the swimming pool robot (i.e., comprising an electronic control box; Paragraph n0043).
Zhang in view of Shay does not explicitly teach having a sealed cavity wherein the second motor is positioned within the sealed cavity and the second motor comprises an output shaft beyond the sealed cavity and operably coupled to the second impeller.
However, Hanan teaches that an on-board controller (i.e., comprising an electronic control box; Fig. 13, #46) includes electronic circuitry that provides power to the pump motors and is installed in the housing of the pump motor (i.e., having a sealed cavity wherein the second motor is positioned within the sealed cavity; Fig. 7, #81; Paragraph 0074)
wherein the water pump assembly (Fig. 7, #80) includes an electric motor having a drive shaft (Fig. Fig. 7, #82) attached to the propeller (Fig. 7, #83) that extends out of the housing (i.e., and the second motor comprises an output shaft beyond the sealed cavity and operably coupled to the second impeller; Paragraph 0060). While Hanan does not explicitly teach a sealed cavity, it is well known that electronics cannot be exposed directly to pool water and maintain their function and so it is inherent that the housing of the electric motor containing the on-board controller is sealed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor and electronic controller made obvious by Zhang in view of Shay to be located together in the motor housing as taught by Hanan because the controller provides power to the motor, so the close proximity of the two devices is preferable.
Regarding Claim 23, Hanan further teaches a battery (i.e., comprising a battery pack; Fig. 12, #92; Paragraph 0040) shown to be included in the water pump assembly alongside the electronic controller (i.e., positioned within the sealed cavity; Fig. 12, #46, 80, 92) and wherein the battery supplies power to the electric motor as a well-known alternative to an electric power cable (i.e., and operably coupled to the second motor; Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 26, Zhang further teaches a handle located on the top of the swimming pool robot (i.e., comprising a handle disposed on the body and configured to allow a user to lift the swimming pool robot; Fig. 7B), seen below.
Hanan further teaches an external handle (Fig. 6, #75; Paragraph 0042) located on the side of the motor housing (Fig. 6 and 12, #80) which contains the battery (Fig. 12, #92) and is between the filter (Fig. 6, #90; Paragraph 0040) and the handle (i.e., wherein the battery pack is closer to the handle than the filtering box).
PNG
media_image6.png
708
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
708
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Shay in view of Hanan as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Lancry et al, US Patent Application No. US 20220220761 A1 (hereinafter Lancry).
Regarding Claim 24, Zhang in view of Shay in view of Hanan does not teach at least two charging sheets disposed at the bottom portion of the body and operably coupled to the battery pack, the at least two charging sheets being configured to allow the battery pack to be recharged by an external power source.
However, Lancry teaches three electrically conductive portions (Fig. 3D, #111) that are conductive pads (i.e., at least two charging sheets; Fig. 3D, #114) that are used to charge and recharge the stores of electricity in the battery block (Fig. 3D, #10; Paragraph 0034) located at the bottom (Fig. 3D, #91) of the chassis (i.e., disposed at the bottom portion of the body; Paragraph 0040) and a charging system (Fig. 5, #90) for selectively recharging the batteries of the battery block in the APC (i.e., and operably coupled to the battery pack, the at least two charging sheets being configured to allow the battery pack to be recharged by an external power source; Fig. 5, #24; Paragraph 0042).
Lancry is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an automatic swimming pool cleaner (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the swimming pool robot made obvious by Zhang in view of Shay in view of Hanan with the conductive pads as taught by Lancry because the conductive pads would allow for the battery pack to be recharged while attached to the swimming pool robot from a charging station.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang further teaches a main water pump inlet (Fig. 8, #141) located on the bottom of the robot which can be used to discharge liquid by switching the function of the main water pump (i.e., comprising a second liquid outlet disposed on the bottom of the body, wherein the second liquid outlet is configured to allow liquid in the swimming pool robot to be discharged; Paragraph n0064).
Lancry further teaches that the conductive pads are located at a far end of the swimming pool robot.
Zhang in view of Shay in view of Hanan in view of Lancry does not explicitly teach the second inlet is located between the at least two charging sheets and the second liquid outlet. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
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 1, 3-4, 17 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 3 of Application No. 19/720,056. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 10-12, 18-25, and 27-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9-12, 14-15, and 16 of copending Application No. 19/720,056 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the copending application does not contain all of the limitations of the instant application in a single embodiment, the copending application contains various embodiments that contain all of the limitations in aggregate and which render the instant application obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights