www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/652,755
`
`04/01/2020
`
`Alexandra R. Cunliffe
`
`79959US005
`
`TAIT
`
`Solventum Intellectual Properties Company
`2510 Conway Ave E
`3M Center, 275-6E-21
`St Paul, MN 5514
`
`LIN, JERRY
`
`1685
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/06/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`IPDocketing @ Solventum.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/652,755
`Examiner
`JERRYLIN
`
`Applicant(s)
`Cunliffe et al.
`Art Unit
`1685
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 22 July 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-9,11 and 13-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Lj Claim(s)__ is/are rejected.
`(J Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)2) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) [[] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20241101
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined underthefirst
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Applicants’ arguments,filed July 22,2024, have been fully considered and they are not
`
`persuasive. Thefollowing rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied as
`
`necessitated by amendment. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently
`
`being applied to the instant application.
`
`Claims 7-4, 44, and 13-20 are under examination.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`Claim Objections
`
`2.
`
`Claim 11 is objected to becauseof the following informalities: Claim 11 depends from cancelled
`
`claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`3.
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvementthereof, may obtaina patent
`therefor, subjectto the conditions and requirementsofthis title.
`
`Claims 1-9, 44, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to judicial exception without significantly more.
`
`Claims 1-9. 11, and 13-20 are directed to method for generating setups for an orthodontic
`
`treaiment plan. As described in Alice Carp, Ply. Lid VW. CLS Bank int? 874 U.S,9734S. Cr. 2347, 170
`
`USPOd 1978 (2074), a two-step analysis is required in consicering the patent eligibility of the claimed
`
`Subject matter. The first step requires cetenrining Hf the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page3
`
`sxcention. The instant claims require ihe stens of receiving a digital GB model of leeth, performing
`
`interproximal reduction UPR} on the model, generating an intial treatmeri path with stages that include
`
`an initial setup, final setup, and a plurality of infermediate setups, cornputing IPR accessthilily for each
`
`tooth at each silage, anotying IPR throughout the initlal treatrnent path, and dividing the initial treatment
`
`palh inie steps of feasible moiion af the teeth, where applying IPR includes applying an iP Fi batching
`
`algorthm that inclucies minimizing a number of IPR sessions as inciaim 7. These sieps are drawn io 4a
`
`mathematical aiganthm. Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 recite accitional rnathematical steps ar the
`
`date used in the mathematical algorithm. The courts have fourk mathematical algorithms to be drawn ta
`
`the iucicial exceniian of an abstract idea Un re Grarns, 888 F.2d 835, 12 USP O2d 1824 (Fed, Cir,
`
`19893}. Thus, the instant claims are drawn to a judicial exception.
`
`This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The instant claims do not
`
`recite an elementthat reflects an improvementin the functioning of a computer or other technology, an
`
`element that applies the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, an element that implements the
`
`judicial exception with a particular machine, or an elementthat effects a transformation of a particular
`
`article to a different state or thing.
`
`The second pen of the analysis requires delermining if the claims include additional elements
`
`that are sufficient io amounitoa significantly more than the judicial exception. The instant claims recite
`
`receiving digital rnacdels, user inputs, and reporting data. The stens of receiving digital rnodels, user
`
`inputs, and reporting data are well-undersicod, routine, and canventional cata qaihering steps or
`
`computer cutout stens. Flaciing such well-undersioac, routine, and conventional elements not transform
`
`@ jucicial exception into patent eligible sublect matter. in addition, the recitation of the specific types of
`
`dala, to be used in the judicial exception does not transform ihe abstract idea inte a non-abstract idea.
`
`(See buySAFE, Inc. v Google, inc. 765 F.3d 1350, 112 U.S.P.O.2d 1995 (Fed. Cir201743), Furthermore,
`
`the elements taken as a combination are also well-understood, routine, and carventional, since the
`
`slaments are merely specifying the types of date fora data gathering step. Thus, the instant claims do not
`
`incluce adicitional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Response to Arauments
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`4.
`
`Applicants first state that the claimed invention’s aigorithrn was nol already established and ihe
`
`comparison of the instant claims to jn re Grams is improper, However, the instant claims are drawn ta 4
`
`mathematical algorithm. The specification teaches thal each of these steps are performed through a
`
`series af mathermaiical calculations (pages 5-15), Thus instari clairns remain drawn to a mathenalical
`
`algorithm which is a judicial exception (MPEP §2106(a2p).
`
`Applicants also state thal the comparison of the Instant claims to GuySAFEis improper. The
`
`courts have found that limiting the type of data to be used merely confines the use of the abstract ideata
`
`a paricular technological environment (MPEP §2706.05(¢n)), Limitations that arnount to merely indioaling
`
`afield of use or technological environment do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself
`
`(MPEP §2106.05(h};.
`
`In the instant case, the recitation of specitic tyoes of data te be usec in the judicial
`
`exception does not transform the abstract idea into a non-absiract idea.
`
`Applicants state that the claimed invention iniprave upon an existing medical treatment by
`
`reducing the number of IPR sessions that a dental pallent musi endure to achieve a desired orthodaritic
`
`auicome. However, the instant claims do include anyrecitation of performing the reciuced number of IPF
`
`sessions. The instant claims only provide a treatment path without requiring the performance of the
`
`treaiment itself. As the claims are written, ihe Instant claims do not necessarily provide the improvement
`
`are described by the anpolioaris. Thus ine instant claims do not provide an improvemerni in a technology
`
`that integrates the juclicial exception into 4 practical application.
`
`This rejection is maintained and modified as necessitated by amencrnent.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis
`
`(i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new groundofrejection if the
`
`prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereitherstatus.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 5
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may notbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as setforth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior art are suchthat the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious beforethe effective filing date of the claimed inventionto a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall notbe
`negated by the manner in whichthe invention was made.
`
`This application currently namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the
`
`examiner presumesthat the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned asof the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidenceto the contrary. Applicant is advised of the
`
`obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not
`
`commonly ownedasofthe effectivefiling date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider
`
`the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art againstthe later
`
`invention.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-8, 44, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chishti
`
`et al. (US 2015/0351871 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2008/0057461 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Chishti et al. teach a method that includes receiving a digital 3D modelof
`
`teeth (paragraph [0019]), generating aninitial treatment path with stagesincluding aninitial set up,final
`
`setup, and a plurality of intermediate setups (paragraphs [0057] -[0058], [0061], [0088] and [0089]) and
`
`dividing the initial treatment path into steps of feasible motion of the teeth (paragraphs [0153] -[0155]). In
`
`addition, Chishti et al. teach creating a treatment path that minimizes the numberof treatment steps
`
`necessary (paragraph [0133], [0141]-[0142], and [0147])
`
`However, Chishti et al. does not teach performing interproximal reduction (IPR) on the model.
`
`Cheng et al. teach a methodthat includes applying IPR on a model(paragraphs [0004] and
`
`[0005]), computing IPR accessibility for each tooth at each stage of the initial treatment path (paragraphs
`
`[0005] and [0016]-[0020]), applying IPR throughoutthe initial treatment path (paragraph [0037]).
`
`In
`
`addition, Cheng etal. teach applying a IPR batching algorithm to the treatment path (paragraphs [0020]
`
`and [0023]).
`
`It would have beenobviousfor oneofordinary skill in the art, at the time offiling, to integrate the
`
`method of Cheng et al. in to the method of Chishti et al. Chishti et al. teach a method of creating a plan
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page6
`
`for prepositioning an orthodontic patient’s teeth using a 3D model (paragraph [0019]). Cheng et al. teach
`
`that a successful orthodontic treatment would require sufficient IPR (paragraph [0002]). One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the IPR methods of Chengetal. into the method
`
`of Chishti et al. to ensure the treatmentplan sufficiently accounted for IPR. Furthermore, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of combining the methods,since the data
`
`of Cheng et al. could be readily incorporated into the mathematical 3D mocel of Chishti etal.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Chishti et al. teach where the treatment plan has key intermediate steps
`
`(paragraph [0155)).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Chishti et al. teach refining the trajectory oftheinitial treatment path based
`
`upon the numberof stepsin the treatment path (paragraph [0133], [0141]-[0142], and [0147)).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Chishti et al. teach performing the refinement based upon an evaluation
`
`criteria that assigns scores to the setups (paragraph [0154]).
`
`Regarding claim 5, Chishti et al. teach where the refinement includes adjusting the resolution of
`
`the treatment path (paragraph [0141)).
`
`Regarding claim 6, Chishti et al. teach generating a new treatmentpathif the treatment path does
`
`not satisfy the evaluation criteria (paragraph [0133], [0141]-[0142], and [0147)).
`
`Regarding claim 7, Chishti et al. teach applying a smoothing algorithm (paragraph [0084] and
`
`[0086)).
`
`Regarding claim 8, Cheng et al. teach a region refinement algorithm on the treatment path
`
`(paragraph [0018] and [0024))
`
`Regarding claim 9, Chishti et al. teach finding the shortest treatment path (paragraph [0133],
`
`[0141]-[0142], and [0147]).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al. teach applying IPR to a treatment path (paragraphs [0020] and
`
`[0023)).
`
`Regarding claim 13, Chenget al. teach selecting the IPR algorithm by user input (paragraphs
`
`[0035] and [0037]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 14, Chishti et al. teach generating the final treatment path based upon user input
`
`(paragraph [0141)),
`
`Regarding claim 15, Chishti et al. teach where the input comprises key setups (paragraph
`
`[0142]).
`
`Regarding claim 16, Chishti et al. teach where the user input comprises intermediate setups
`
`(paragraph [0142}).
`
`Regarding claim 17, Chishti et al. teach where the input includes approximate set ups (paragraph
`
`[0101]).
`
`Regarding claim 18, Chenget al.t each where the input includesidentification of regions for
`
`refinement (paragraph [0005])
`
`Regarding claim 19, Chishti et al. teach dividing thefinal treatment path based on key frames
`
`(paragraphs [0143]-[0145]).
`
`Regarding claim 20, Chishti et al. teach generating multiple final treatment paths (paragraph
`
`[0146)).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`7.
`
`Applicants have respondedtothis rejection by stating that Cheng et al. does not teach minimizing
`
`the numberof IPR sessions. However, Chishtiet al. teach determining the shortest treatment path given
`
`the conditions provided by the user (paragraph [0133], [0141]-[0142], and [0147]), while Cheng etal.
`
`teach applying IPR (paragraph [0035]). The combination of these teachings of the shortest treatment
`
`path while applying IPR addressthelimitation of minimizing the numberof IPR sessions. Thus, the prior
`
`art does teachthelimitation of minimizing the numberof IPR sessions.
`
`This rejection is maintained and modified as necessitated by amendment.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`8.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine groundedin
`
`public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 8
`
`extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple
`
`assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejectionis 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 examinedapplication claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the
`
`reference claim(s). See, e.g., /n 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 timelyfiled terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to
`
`overcome anactualor provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the
`
`reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly ownedwith the examined application, or
`
`claims an invention madeas a result of activities undertaken within the scopeof a joint research
`
`agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination underthefirst inventor to file
`
`provisionsof the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject
`
`to examination under the first inventorto file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed
`
`in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`Thefiling of a terminal disclaimerbyitself 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 rejectionis 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). Fora 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 befiled after final for consideration. See
`
`MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
`
`The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Pleasevisit
`
`www. uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actualfiling date of the application in which the formisfiled
`
`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 maybe filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
`
`Disclaimer that meetsall requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 9
`
`For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www. uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-
`
`online/eterminal-disclaimer.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-3, 14, ancl 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable overclaim 1-16 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 17/441 ,331
`
`(reference application). in view of Cheng et al. (US 2008/0057461 A1) or in view of Chishti et al. (US
`
`2015/0351871 A1).
`
`Instant claim 1 differs from claims 1, 19 and 20 of the reference application in that the instant
`
`claims include a step of minimizing a numberof IPR sessions.
`
`It would have been obviousto one of
`
`ordinary skillin the art to incorporate the teachings of Chishti et al. with the reference application. Chishti
`
`et al. teach an automated system of determining the treatment path for repositioning teeth (abstract).
`
`One of ordinary skillin the art would have been motivated to combine the methodsof Chishti et al. and
`
`the reference application to gain the advantage of automating a treatment path.
`
`Instant claim 2 recites the same limitations as claim 2 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 3 recites the same limitation as claim 3 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 4 recites the same limitations as claim 4 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 5 recites the same limitations as claim 5 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 6 recites the same limitations as claim 6 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 7 recites the same limitations as claim 7 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 8 recites the same limitations as claim 8 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 10
`
`Instant claim 9 recites the same limitations as claim 9 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al. teach applying IPR to a treatment path (paragraphs [0020] and
`
`[0023]).
`
`It would have been obviousto oneof ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of
`
`Cheng et al. with the reference application. Cheng et al. teach that a successful orthodontic treatment
`
`would require sufficient IPR (paragraph [0002]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to incorporate the IPR methodsof Chengetal. into the methodof the reference application to ensure the
`
`treatmentplan sufficiently accounted for IPR.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Chenget al. teach selecting the IPR algorithm by user input (paragraphs
`
`[0035] and [0037]). It would have been obviousto oneof ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the
`
`teachings of Cheng etal. with the reference application. Cheng et al. teach that a successful orthodontic
`
`treatment would require sufficient IPR (paragraph [0002]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to incorporate the IPR methods of Chenget al. into the method of the reference application to
`
`ensure the treatment plan sufficiently accounted for IPR.
`
`Instant claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 10 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 11 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 12 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 17 recites the same limitations as claim 13 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 18 recites the same limitations as claim 14 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 19 recites the same limitations as claim 15 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`Instant claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 16 of the reference application. Thus, the
`
`claims at issue are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 11
`
`This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentablyindistinct
`
`claims have notin fact been patented.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicants requested that the rejection be held in abeyance. This rejection is maintained and
`
`modified as necessitated by amendment.
`
`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 remindedof
`
`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 MONTHSfrom
`
`
`
`the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst reply is filed within TWO MONTHSofthe 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Contact Information
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to JERRY LIN whose telephone numberis (571)272-2561. The examiner can normally be
`
`reached M-F 8am-4 pm.
`
`Examinerinterviewsare 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/652,755
`Art Unit: 1685
`
`Page 12
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor,
`
`Olivia Wise can be reached on (571) 272-2249. The fax phone numberfor the organization wherethis
`
`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 Centeris available to registered users. To
`
`file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://oatentcenter.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 aboutfiling in DOCX format. For additional questions,
`
`contactthe Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free). If you would like assistance
`
`from a USPTO CustomerService Representative, call 800-786-9199 (INUSA OR CANADA)or 571-272-
`
`1000.
`
`/JERRY LIN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
`
`