¶ 7.01 Use of Unconventional Terminology, Cannot Be Examined

A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: [1]

Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).

A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this or form paragraph 7.02 when a proper search cannot be made. However, see MPEP § 702.01 which requires a reasonable search.

2. In bracket 1, fill in an appropriate indication of the terminology, properties, units of data, etc. that are the problem as well as the pages of the specification involved.

3. For the procedure to be followed when the drawing is not acceptable, see MPEP §§ 608.02(a) and 608.02(b).

¶ 7.02 Disclosure Is Incomprehensible

The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: [1]

Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.

Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).

A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph when a search cannot be made.

2. In bracket 1, indicate the page numbers and features which are not understood.

3. See form paragraphs 6.28 and 6.30 for improper idiomatic English.

4. Use form paragraphs 7.31.01 – 7.31.04, as appropriate, for a rejection of claims (when necessary) based on the deficiencies set forth in this form paragraph.

¶ 7.03.aia Application Examined Under AIA First Inventor to File Provisions

The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be used in any application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

¶ 7.03.fti Application Examined Under First to Invent provisions

The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be used in any application filed on or after March 16, 2013 that is subject to the pre-AIA prior art provisions.

¶ 7.04.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 101

35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must precede the first use of 35 U.S.C. 101 in all first actions on the merits and final rejections.

¶ 7.04.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101/115

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115 for failing to set forth the correct inventorship for the reasons stated above.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert "is" or "are" as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection.

2. This rejection must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.04.101.aia or 7.04.102.aia.

¶ 7.04.03 Human Organism

Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 ). [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 which quotes 35 U.S.C. 101.

2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert "is" or "are" as appropriate.

3. In bracket 2, explain why the claim is interpreted to read on a human organism.

¶ 7.04.101.aia Statement of Statutory Bases, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship

35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:

35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):

An application for patent that is filed under section 111(a) or commences the national stage under section 371 shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any invention claimed in the application.

The present application sets forth the incorrect inventorship because [1].

Examiner Note:

1. If form paragraph 7.04.01 is already being used for a rejection that is not based on improper inventorship, then in lieu of this form paragraph, use form paragraph 7.04.102.aia with form paragraph 7.04.01 for a rejection based on improper inventorship.

2. In bracket 1, insert the basis for concluding that the inventorship is incorrect.

3. This form paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 7.04.02.aia.

¶ 7.04.102.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship

35 U.S.C. 115(a) reads as follows (in part):

The present application sets forth the incorrect inventorship because [1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is to be used ONLY when a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on another basis has been made and the statutory text thereof is already present.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 for a rejection based on improper inventorship.

3. In bracket 1, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that an improper inventor is named.

¶ 7.05 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, -Heading Only- (Utility, Nonstatutory, Inoperative)

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.04.01 in first actions and final rejections.

2. This form paragraph must be followed by a detailed explanation of the grounds of rejection using one or more of form paragraphs 7.05.01, 7.05.016, 7.05.017, 7.05.02, 7.05.03, or another appropriate reason.

3. See MPEP §§ 2105 - 2107.03 for additional guidance.

¶ 7.05.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Not One of the Four Statutory Categories)

the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because [1]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.

2. In bracket 1, explain why the claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter by identifying what the claim(s) is/are directed to and explain why it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), e.g., the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, mere information in the form of data, a contract between two parties, or a human being (see MPEP § 2106, subsection I).

3. For a claim that is directed to a judicial exception and is nonstatutory, use form paragraph 7.05.016.

¶ 7.05.016 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)

the claimed invention is directed to [1] without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) [2]. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because [3]. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because [4].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05. For claims that recite a tentative abstract idea (i.e., a limitation identified as an abstract idea even though it does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)), this form paragraph should be accompanied by form paragraph 7.05.017.

2. This form paragraph is for use with all product (machine, manufacture, and composition of matter) and process claims, and for all claims directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon (including a product of nature), or abstract idea.

3. In bracket 1, identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (including a product of nature), or an abstract idea.

4. In bracket 2, identify the exception by referring to how it is recited in the claim and explain why it is considered an exception (e.g., for an abstract idea, identify the abstract idea grouping in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) into which the recited exception falls). For example, "the Arrhenius equation, which is a law of nature and a mathematical concept which describes the relationship between temperature and reaction rate" or "the series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions." For a product of nature exception, refer to how it is recited in the claim and explain why its characteristics are not markedly different from the product’s naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. For example, "the naturally occurring DNA segment, which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same genetic information." Provide additional explanation regarding the exception and how it has been identified when appropriate.

5. In bracket 3, explain why the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, if the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, explain that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; or, if the claim is directed to a method of using a naturally occurring correlation, explain that data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Similarly, if the claim recites a "naturally occurring DNA segment" with an additional element of a test tube, explain that merely placing the product of nature into a generic container such as a test tube does not add a meaningful limitation as it is merely a nominal or token extra-solution component of the claim, and is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.

6. In bracket 4, identify the additional elements and explain why, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. For example, if the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory, explain that these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).

¶ 7.05.017 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, TC Director Approval for "Tentative Abstract Idea"

The identified claim limitation(s) that recite(s) an abstract idea do/does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Nonetheless, the claim limitation(s) is/are being treated as reciting an abstract idea because [1].

This rejection has been approved by the Technology Center Director signing below.

[2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should be preceded by form paragraph 7.05.016.

2. Approval from the TC Director is required to treat a tentative abstract idea (i.e., a claim limitation(s) that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)) as an abstract idea. This form paragraph should be used to demonstrate that this approval has been obtained.

3. In bracket 1, provide the justification for why the claim limitation(s) is/are being treated as an abstract idea. For example, provide an explanation of why the claim limitation is among the "basic tools of scientific and technological work."

4. In bracket 2, insert the TC Director's signature. Approval of the TC Director is required to treat a claim limitation that does not fall within the groupings of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3).

¶ 7.05.018 [Reserved]

¶ 7.05.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Utility Lacking

the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. [1]

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, provide explanation of lack of utility. See MPEP §§ 2105 - 2107.03.

¶ 7.05.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Inoperative

the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. [1]

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, explain why invention is inoperative.

¶ 7.05.04 Utility Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), First Paragraph

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a [2] asserted utility or a well established utility.

[3]

Claim [4] also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a [5] asserted utility or a well established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

1. Where the specification would not enable one skilled in the art to make the claimed invention, or where alternative reasons support the enablement rejection, a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, enablement should be made using the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and an undue experimentation analysis. See MPEP §§ 2164 - 2164.08(c).

2. Use Format A, B, or C below as appropriate.

Format A:

(a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
(b) Insert --specific and substantial-- in inserts 2 and 5.
(c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well established utility.
(d) Format A is to be used when there is no asserted utility and when there is an asserted utility but that utility is not specific and substantial.

Format B:

(a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
(b) Insert --credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
(c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well established utility.

Format C:

For claims that have multiple utilities, some of which are not specific and substantial, some of which are not credible, but none of which are specific, substantial and credible:
- (a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
- (b) Insert --specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
- (c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible asserted utility or a well established utility. Each utility should be addressed.

¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning

Applicant is advised that should claim [1] be found allowable, claim [2] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph whenever two claims are found to be substantial duplicates, but they are not allowable. This will give the applicant an opportunity to correct the problem and avoid a later objection.

2. If the claims are allowable, use form paragraph 7.05.06.

3. When a dependent claim does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the dependent claim should be rejected using form paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01. See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III. It is not necessary to also warn of the prohibition against duplicate claims using this form paragraph.

¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection

Claim [1] objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim [2]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

Examiner Note:

1. If the duplicate claims are not allowable, use form paragraph 7.05.05.

2. When a dependent claim does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the dependent claim should be rejected using form paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01. See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection III. It is not necessary to also object to the improper dependent claim using this form paragraph.

¶ 7.06 Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA

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 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.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be used in all Office Actions when a prior art rejection is made in an application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013.

2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in an Office action.

¶ 7.06.01 Claim Limitation Relating to a Tax Strategy Deemed To Be Within the Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103

Claim limitation "[1]" has been interpreted as a strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability ("tax strategy") pursuant to Section 14 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Accordingly, this claim limitation is being treated as being within the prior art and is insufficient to differentiate the invention of claim [2] from the prior art.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, recite the claim limitation that relates to a tax strategy. For more information see MPEP § 2124.01.

2. In bracket 2, insert claim number(s), pluralize "claim" as appropriate.

¶ 7.07.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 102

The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

Examiner Note:

1. The statute is no longer being re-cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use form paragraph 7.103.

2. Form paragraphs 7.07.aia, 7.08.aia, 7.12.aia and 7.14.aia are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.

3. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.07.fti Statement of Statutory Basis, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102

The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

Examiner Note:

2. Form paragraphs 7.07.fti to 7.14.fti are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.

3. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.08.aia 102(a)(1), Activity Before the Effective Filing Date of Claimed Invention

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.03.aia and 7.07.aia.

¶ 7.08.fti Pre-AIA 102(a), Activity by Another Before Invention by Applicant

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti.

¶ 7.09.fti Pre-AIA 102(b), Activity More Than One Year Prior to Filing

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by form paragraph 7.08.fti.

¶ 7.10.fti Pre-AIA 102(c), Invention Abandoned

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.

¶ 7.11.fti Pre-AIA 102(d), Foreign Patenting

(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.10.fti.

¶ 7.12.aia 102(a)(2), U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Application Publication or WIPO Published Application That Names Another Inventor and Has an Earlier Effectively Filed Date

(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.03.aia and 7.07.aia and may be preceded by 7.08.aia.

3. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is one of the following:

(a) a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 having an effectively filed date earlier than the application;

(b) a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) having an effectively filed date earlier than the application; or

(c) a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the application.

If any of these three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the claims under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

¶ 7.12.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 102(e), Patent Application Publication or Patent to Another with Earlier Filing Date, in view of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002

(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is one of the following:

(a) a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);

(b) a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (i.e., a PCT application) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;

(c) a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.

2. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).

In addition, a reference (i.e., a U.S. patent, published U.S. patent application, or WIPO publication) is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application only if at least one of the claims in the reference is supported by the written description of the provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph or 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 116 USPQ2d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

3. In order to rely on an international filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the international application (PCT) must have been filed on or after November 29, 2000, it must have designated the U.S., and the international publication under PCT Article 21(2) by WIPO must have been in English. If any one of the conditions is not met, the international filing date is not a U.S. filing date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

4. If an international application (PCT) was published by WIPO in a language other than English, or did not designate the U.S., the international application’s publication by WIPO, the U.S. publication of the national stage application (35 U.S.C. 371 ) of the international application and a U.S. patent issued from the national stage of the international application may not be applied as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.

5. If an international application (PCT) was published by WIPO in a language other than English, the U.S. publication of, or a U.S. patent issued from, a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to such an international application, has a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date as of the earliest U.S. filing date after the international filing date.

6. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application (PCT) that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use form paragraph 7.12.01.fti. In that situation, pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is applicable in the determination of the prior art date of the patent issued from such an international application.

7. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including the U.S. publication of a national stage (35 U.S.C. 371 ), that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference may not be applied as a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.

8. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.11.fti.

¶ 7.12.01.fti Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Patent to Another with Earlier Filing Date, Reference is a U.S. Patent Issued Directly or Indirectly From a National Stage of, or a Continuing Application Claiming Benefit to, an International Application Having an International Filing Date Prior to November 29, 2000

(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.

The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should only be used if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000.

2. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly from a national stage of such an international application, the reference’s pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date is the date that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. The language of WIPO publication (PCT) is not relevant in this situation. Caution: the international publication of the international application (PCT) by WIPO may have an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(b).

3. If the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly from a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to such an international application (which had not entered the national stage prior to the continuing application’s filing date, otherwise see note 4), the prior art reference’s pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date is the actual U.S. filing date of the continuing application. Caution: the international publication of the international application (PCT) by WIPO may have an earlier prior art date under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 102(b).

4. In determining the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) only if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).

5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.11.fti.

¶ 7.13.fti Pre-AIA 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.12.fti.

¶ 7.14.aia Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.aia.

¶ 7.14.fti Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.07.fti, and may be preceded by one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.13.fti.

¶ 7.15.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].

Examiner Note:

2. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

3. In bracket 2, insert either "(a)(1)" or "(a)(2)" or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable.

4. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

5. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.

6. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.aia and form paragraphs 7.08.aia, and 7.12.aia as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.

7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.15.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) Patent or Publication, and (g)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 [2] as being [3] by [4].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter or letters of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 in parentheses. If paragraph (e) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.

2. In bracket 3, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

3. In bracket 4, insert the prior art relied upon.

4. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.fti and form paragraphs 7.08.fti, 7.09.fti, and 7.14.fti as appropriate, or by form paragraph 7.103.

5. If pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is also being applied, this form paragraph must be followed by either form paragraph 7.15.01.fti, 7.15.02.fti or 7.15.03.fti.

6. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.15.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.

Based upon the earlier effective filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented under 35 U.S.C. 151. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].

This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier effective filing date that discloses the claimed invention and has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ) or at least one common joint inventor.

3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:

a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the application;

b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application; or

c. a WIPO publication of an international application (PCT) or international design application that designates the United States where the WIPO publication has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the application.

If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) issued or was published before the effective filing date of the application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

4. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia.

5. In bracket 1, insert claim number(s) under rejection.

6. In bracket 2, insert the application number.

7. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

8. In bracket 4, provide an appropriate explanation of the examiner’s position on anticipation.

9. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the reference should be provisionally rejected using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to amend or cancel claims such that the applied reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention using form paragraph 8.27.aia.

10. Any claims in the instant application that are directed to subject matter that is not patentably distinct from an invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting using form paragraph 8.33 and at least one of form paragraphs 8.34 - 8.39.

11. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.15.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim(s) [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application.

Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), if published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4].

This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a).

This rejection may not be overcome by the filing of a terminal disclaimer. See In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject over a copending application with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention which has not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122. The copending application must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor.

2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) to determine the copending application’s prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti). See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.

3. If the claims would have been obvious over the invention disclosed in the other copending application, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti.

4. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

5. In bracket 4, an appropriate explanation may be provided in support of the examiner’s position on anticipation, if necessary.

6. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the reference should be provisionally rejected using form paragraphs 8.30 and 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to amend or cancel claims such that the applied reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention using form paragraph 8.27.fti.

7. Any claims in the instant application that are directed to subject matter that is not patentably distinct from an invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting using form paragraph 8.33 and at least one of form paragraphs 8.34 - 8.39.

8. If evidence is additionally of record to show that either invention is prior art to the other under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), a rejection using form paragraphs 7.13.fti and/or 7.14.fti should also be made.

9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013 that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.15.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor(s)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being [2] by [3].

The applied reference has a common [4] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph is used to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO publication with an earlier effectively filed date. These references must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor.

3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference names another inventor (i.e., a different inventive entity) and is one of the following:

a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention;

b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effectively filed date earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the claimed invention under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.

7. In bracket 4, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

8. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.12.aia.

9. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) on the grounds of statutory double patenting using form paragraphs 8.30 - 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention using form paragraph 8.27.aia.

11. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.15.02.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by [2].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier effective filing date. The patent or patent application publication must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or a common joint inventor.

2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 (form paragraph 7.12.fti) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:

a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);

b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;

c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.

See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.

3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) (form paragraph 7.12.01.fti) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.

4. In determining the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date, consider benefit claims to earlier-filed U.S. provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), and to earlier-filed U.S. nonprovisional applications and international applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) if the subject matter used to make the rejection is appropriately supported in the relied upon earlier-filed application’s disclosure (and any intermediate application(s)). A benefit claim to a U.S. patent of an earlier-filed international application, which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, may only result in an effective U.S. filing date as of the date the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (2) and (4) were fulfilled. Do NOT consider any benefit claims to U.S. applications which are filed before an international application that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. Do NOT consider foreign priority claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) - (d), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).

5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO PCT publication, that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.

6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

7. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12.fti or 7.12.01.fti.

8. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.fti.

9. For applications with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

10. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, two patents are not permitted to issue on identical subject matter. Any claims in the instant application directed to the same invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) using form paragraphs 8.30 - 8.32. Additionally, the applicant should be required to resolve any issue of priority under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and possibly pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) using form paragraph 8.27.fti. See MPEP § 804, subsection II.A.

11. Any claims in the instant application that are directed to subject matter that is not patentably distinct from an invention claimed in the reference should be rejected (or provisionally rejected if the reference has not yet issued as a patent) on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting using form paragraph 8.33 and at least one of form paragraphs 8.34 - 8.39.

¶ 7.15.03.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), No Common Assignee or Inventor(s)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being [2] by [3].

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph is used to reject a claim over a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication or WIPO patent application publication with an earlier effective filing date. The reference is not required to have a common assignee or inventor.

3. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) may be applied if the reference is one of the following:

a. a U.S. patent granted under 35 U.S.C. 151 that has an effective filing date earlier than the application;

b. a U.S. Patent Application Publication published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) that has an effective filing date earlier than the application; or

c. a WIPO publication of an international application where the WIPO publication has an effective filing date earlier than the application.

If any of the three types of prior art documents under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) was published before the effective filing date of the application under examination, then the prior art document is also applicable under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.

7. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.12.aia.

¶ 7.15.03.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), No Common Assignee or Inventor(s)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being [2] by [3].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent or patent application publication with an earlier filing date. The patent or patent application publication is not required to have a common assignee or a common inventor.

a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);

b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;

c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.

See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.

5. If the reference is a publication of an international application (PCT), including voluntary U.S. publication under 35 U.S.C. 122 of the national stage or a WIPO (PCT) publication, that has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, did not designate the United States or was not published in English by WIPO, do not use this form paragraph. Such a reference is not a prior art reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The reference may be applied under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b) as of its publication date. See form paragraphs 7.08.fti and 7.09.fti.

6. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

7. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.

8. This form paragraph must be preceded by either of form paragraphs 7.12.fti or 7.12.01.fti.

9. Patent application publications may only be used if this form paragraph was preceded by form paragraph 7.12.fti.

¶ 7.16.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Public Use, On Sale, or Otherwise Publicly Available

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. [2]

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.aia and 7.08.aia or by form paragraph 7.103.

3. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

4. A full explanation of the evidence establishing a public use or sale or other public availability must be provided in bracket 2.

¶ 7.16.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), Public Use or on Sale

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based upon a public use or sale of the invention. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.09.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.

2. A full explanation of the evidence establishing a public use or sale must be provided in bracket 2.

¶ 7.17.aia 102(a)(1) Rejection Using Prior Art Excepted under 102(b)(2)(C)

Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although reference [2] has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).

Applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.aia or 7.15.aia where the anticipation rejection is based on a reference that has been excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) but still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

3. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.

4. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been excepted.

¶ 7.17.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c), Abandonment of Invention

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(c) because the invention has been abandoned. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.07.fti and 7.10.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, insert a full explanation of the evidence establishing abandonment of the invention. See MPEP § 2134.

¶ 7.18.aia Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g)

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (g) as being [2] by [3].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should only be used for an application or a patent that is being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia) and MUST contain or have contained a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained such a claim.

2. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

3. In bracket 2, insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph.

4. In bracket 3, insert the prior art relied upon.

5. This rejection must be preceded either by form paragraph 7.14.aia, or by form paragraph 7.103.

¶ 7.18.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), Foreign Patenting

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) as being barred by applicants [2]. [3]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded either by form paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.11.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.

2. In bracket 3, insert an explanation of this rejection which must include appropriate dates and how they make the foreign patent available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d).

3. Refer to MPEP § 2135 for applicable pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) prior art.

¶ 7.19.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor

Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) because the applicant did not invent the claimed subject matter. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph must be preceded either by paragraphs 7.07.fti and 7.13.fti or by paragraph 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of the supporting evidence establishing that applicant was not the inventor. See MPEP § 2137.

¶ 7.20.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 103

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.

Examiner Note:

2. The statute is not to be cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits employing 35 U.S.C. 103 and final rejections. Where the statute is being applied, but is not cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.

3. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in a given Office action.

4. This form paragraph must precede any of form paragraphs 7.20.01.aia, 7.20.02.aia, 7.20.04.aia, 7.20.05.aia, 7.21.aia, 7.21.01.aia, 7.21.02.aia, and 7.22.aia when this form paragraph is used to cite the statute in first actions and final rejections.

¶ 7.20.fti Statement of Statutory Basis, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Examiner Note:

1. The statute is not to be cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits employing pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and final rejections. Where the statute is being applied, but is not cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.

2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in a given Office action.

3. This form paragraph must precede form paragraphs 7.20.01.fti - 7.22.fti when this form paragraph is used to cite the statute in first actions and final rejections.

¶ 7.20.01.aia 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Excepted Under 102(b)(2)(C) Because Reference is Prior Art Under 102(a)(1)

Applicant has provided a submission in this file that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, although subject matter disclosed in the reference [2] has been excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), it is still applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be excepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).

Applicant may overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.aia or 7.15.aia where the 103 rejection is based on subject matter disclosed in a reference that has since been excepted under 102(b)(2)(C), but still qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).

3. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.

4. In bracket 2, identify the reference which discloses the subject matter that has been excepted.

¶ 7.20.01.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Not Disqualified Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Because Reference Is Prior Art Under Another Subsection of Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102

Applicant has provided a submission in this file that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] at the time this invention was made, or was subject to a joint research agreement at the time this invention was made. However, reference [2] qualifies as prior art under another subsection of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, and therefore is not disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).

Applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention "by another," or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20.fti in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using art that is disqualified under pre-AIA 103(c) using pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g), but which qualifies under another section of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102.

2. In bracket 1, identify the common assignee.

3. In bracket 2, identify the reference which has been disqualified.

¶ 7.20.02.aia Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed

This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to 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 owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 against the later invention.

Examiner Note:

2. This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).

¶ 7.20.02.fti Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed

This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Examiner Note:

This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).

¶ 7.20.04.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Excepted Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Common Ownership or Assignment Provision

Applicant has attempted to show that subject matter disclosed in the reference [1] is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [2] at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed. However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, the subject matter disclosed in the reference is not excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant must file the required submission in order to properly except the subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See MPEP § 2154.02(c).

In addition, applicant may rely upon the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A) to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph should be included in all actions containing rejections using 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art, whether anticipation or obviousness rejections, where an attempt has been made to except subject matter disclosed in the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), but where the applicant has not provided a proper statement indicating common ownership or assignment not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

3. In bracket 1, identify the commonly owned applied art (e.g., patent or co-pending application).

4. In bracket 2, identify the common assignee.

¶ 7.20.04.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Using the Common Ownership or Assignment Provision

Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) by showing that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [2] at the time this invention was made. However, applicant has failed to provide a statement that the application and the reference were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person at the time the invention was made in a conspicuous manner, and therefore, the reference is not disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Applicant must file the required submission in order to properly disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See MPEP § 2146.02, subsection II.

In addition, applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore not the invention "by another," or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), but where the applicant has not provided a proper statement indicating common ownership or assignment at the time the invention was made.

2. In brackets 1 and 2, identify the commonly owned applied art (e.g., patent or co-pending application).

¶ 7.20.05.aia 102 or 103 Rejection Using Prior Art Under 102(a)(2) That Is Attempted To Be Excepted Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) Using the Joint Research Agreement Provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(c)

Applicant has attempted to show that subject matter disclosed in the reference [1] is excepted as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) by showing that the claimed invention was subject to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, applicant has failed to [2]. Applicant must file the missing requirements in order to properly except the subject matter disclosed in the reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and 1.104(c)(4)(ii).

In addition, applicant may overcome the rejection either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained, either directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore, not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Alternatively, applicant may rely on the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) by providing evidence of a prior public disclosure via an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing obviousness or anticipation rejections where an attempt has been made to except subject matter disclosed in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) using the joint research agreement provisions but the attempt is ineffective.

3. In bracket 1, identify the reference which discloses subject matter that is sought to be excepted via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C).

4. In bracket 2, identify the reason(s) why the attempt is ineffective. The reason(s) could be noncompliance with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) or rule requirements relating to the CREATE Act, such as failure to submit the required statement or failure to amend the specification to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.71(g)(1) and 1.104(c)(4)(ii).

¶ 7.20.05.fti Pre-AIA 103(a) Rejection Using Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 102(e), (f), or (g) That Is Attempted To Be Disqualified Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) Using the Joint Research Agreement Provisions

Applicant has attempted to disqualify reference [1] under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) by showing that the invention was subject to a joint research agreement at the time this invention was made. However, applicant has failed to [2]. Applicant must file the missing requirements in order to properly disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). See 37 CFR 1.71(g) and 1.104(c) and MPEP § 2146.02, subsection III.

In addition, applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention "by another," or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131(a).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be included in all actions containing rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) where an attempt has been made to disqualify the reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) using the joint research agreement provisions but the disqualification attempt is ineffective.

2. In bracket 1, identify the reference which is sought to be disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).

3. In bracket 2, identify the reason(s) why the disqualification attempt is ineffective. The reason(s) could be noncompliance with the statutory requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) or rule requirements relating to the CREATE Act, such as failure to submit the required statement or failure to amend the specification to include the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(5)(ii).

¶ 7.21.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103

Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2].

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.aia or form paragraph 7.103.

3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.

4. If this rejection is a provisional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based upon a copending application that would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.aia instead of this paragraph.

5. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

6. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.

7. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.21.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)

Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2].

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20.fti or form paragraph 7.103.

2. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.

3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.

4. If the applicability of this rejection (e.g., the availability of the prior art as a reference under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) ) prevents the reference from being disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), form paragraph 7.20.01.fti must follow this form paragraph.

5. If this rejection is a provisional pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon a copending application that would comprise prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented or published, use form paragraph 7.21.01.fti instead of this paragraph.

6. In bracket 1, insert the claim numbers which are under rejection.

7. In bracket 2, insert the prior art relied upon.

¶ 7.21.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]

This provisional rejection might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the copending application was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention either were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.

Examiner Note:

2. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier effectively filed date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor.

3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia.

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.

6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.

8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.

¶ 7.21.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim [1] is/are provisionally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if published or patented. This provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future publication or patenting of the copending application. [4]

This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131(a). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 2146 et seq.

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used when the copending application is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 2146.03(a).

2. Use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the copending application's prior art date, unless the copending application is based directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. If the copending application is either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) to determine the copending application’s prior art date. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.

3. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use paragraph 7.15.01.fti.

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert the application number.

6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.

8. If the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the invention claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.

9. A rejection should additionally be made under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21.fti if:

a. evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28.fti); and

b. the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection pursuant to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).

¶ 7.21.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over [2].

The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). [4]

This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.

Examiner Note:

2. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier effectively filed date that discloses the claimed invention, and that ONLY qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). If the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.aia should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is not prior art in view of the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception.

3. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

4. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.

¶ 7.21.02.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or at Least One Common Joint Inventor

Claim [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [2].

The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention "by another"; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) named in the application is the prior inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP § 2146 et seq. [4]

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph is used to reject over a reference (patent or published application) with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention, and that only qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If the reference qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraph 7.21.fti should be used instead). The reference must have either a common assignee, a common applicant (35 U.S.C. 118 ), or at least one common joint inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications when the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. See MPEP § 2146.03.

2. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) must be applied if the reference is by another and is one of the following:

a. a U.S. patent or a publication of a U.S. application for patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a);

b. a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from, or a U.S. or WIPO publication of, an international application (PCT) if the international application has an international filing date on or after November 29, 2000;

c. a U.S. patent issued from, or a WIPO publication of, an international design application that designates the United States.

See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.

3. Pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) must be applied if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application filed prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraph 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference.

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection.

6. In bracket 3, insert --assignee--, --applicant--, or --joint inventor--.

7. In bracket 4, insert an explanation of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.

¶ 7.22.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103, Further in View Of

Claim [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.aia.

3. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.

¶ 7.22.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Further in View Of

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.fti.

2. An explanation of the rejection must follow this form paragraph. See MPEP § 2144.

3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.

¶ 7.23.aia Test for Obviousness

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.

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph may be used, if appropriate, in response to an argument regarding the applicability of the factors for determining obviousness.

¶ 7.23.fti Test for Obviousness

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph may be used, if appropriate, in response to an argument regarding the applicability of the factors for determining obviousness.

¶ 7.27.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ([2]) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over [3].

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph is NOT intended to be commonly used as a substitute for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In other words, a single rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made whenever possible. Examples of circumstances where this paragraph may be used are as follows:

a. When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111 - 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.

b. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112 - 2112.02.

c. When the reference teaches a small genus which places a claimed species in the possession of the public as in In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 197 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978), and the species would have been obvious even if the genus were not sufficiently small to justify a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP §§ 2131.02 and 2144.08 for more information on anticipation and obviousness of species by a disclosure of a genus.

d. When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.

e. When the reference teaches all claim limitations except a means plus function limitation and the examiner is not certain whether the element disclosed in the reference is an equivalent of the claimed element and therefore anticipatory, or whether the prior art element is an obvious variant of the claimed element. See MPEP §§ 2183 - 2184.

f. When the ranges disclosed in the reference and claimed by applicant overlap in scope but the reference does not contain a specific example within the claimed range. See the concurring opinion in Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2131.03.

3. If the interpretation of the claim(s) renders the claim(s) indefinite, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be appropriate.

4. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.

5. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis.

6. In bracket 3, insert the prior art reference relied upon for the rejection.

7. A full explanation must follow this form paragraph, i.e., the examiner must provide an explanation of how the claims at issue could be considered to be anticipated, as well as how they could be considered to be obvious.

8. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.07.aia and 7.08.aia and/or 7.12.aia or by form paragraph 7.103.

9. For applications claiming priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013, this form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.06.

¶ 7.27.fti Rejection, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or pre-AIA 103(a)

Claim(s) [1] is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 ([2]) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over [3].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is NOT intended to be commonly used as a substitute for a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. In other words, a single rejection under either pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) should be made whenever possible using appropriate form paragraphs 7.15.fti to 7.19.fti, 7.21.fti and 7.22.fti. Examples of circumstances where this paragraph may be used are as follows:

a. When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111 - 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.

2. If the interpretation of the claim(s) renders the claim(s) indefinite, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, may be appropriate.

3. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection.

4. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis.

5. In bracket 3, insert the prior art reference relied upon for the rejection.

6. A full explanation should follow this form paragraph.

7. If the rejection relies upon prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) to determine the reference’s prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371 ) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000, or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 , 121 or 365(c), or 386(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12.fti and 7.12.01.fti to assist in the determination of the reference’s pre-AIA and pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) dates, respectively.

8. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.07.fti, one or more of form paragraphs 7.08.fti to 7.14.fti as appropriate, and form paragraph 7.20.fti or by form paragraph 7.103.

¶ 7.28 Objection to New Matter Added to Specification

The amendment filed [1] is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 (a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: [2].

Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is not to be used in reissue applications; use form paragraph 14.22.01 instead.

2. In bracket 2, identify the new matter by page and the line numbers and provide an appropriate explanation of your position. This explanation should address any statement by applicant to support the position that the subject matter is described in the specification as filed. It should further include any unresolved questions which raise a doubt as to the possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.

3. If new matter is added to the claims, or affects the claims, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, using form paragraph 7.31.01 should also be made. If new matter is added only to a claim, an objection using this paragraph should not be made, but the claim should be rejected using form paragraph 7.31.01. As to any other appropriate prior art or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the new matter must be considered as part of the claimed subject matter and cannot be ignored.

¶ 7.29 Disclosure Objected to, Minor Informalities

The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [1]. Appropriate correction is required.

Examiner Note:

Use this paragraph to point out minor informalities such as spelling errors, inconsistent terminology (see the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a) for "full, clear, concise, and exact terms"), numbering of elements (see 37 CFR 1.74 ), etc., which should be corrected. See form paragraphs 6.28 to 6.31 for specific informalities.

¶ 7.29.01 Claims Objected to, Minor Informalities

Claim[1] objected to because of the following informalities: [2]. Appropriate correction is required.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph to point out minor informalities such as spelling errors, inconsistent terminology (see the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a) for "full, clear, concise, and exact terms"), etc., which should be corrected.

2. If the informalities render the claim(s) indefinite, use form paragraph 7.34.01 instead to reject the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph.

¶ 7.29.02 Claims Objected to, Reference Characters Not Enclosed Within Parentheses

The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

Examiner Note:

1. If the lack of parentheses renders the claim(s) indefinite, use form paragraph 7.34.01 instead to reject the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , second paragraph.

¶ 7.29.03 Claims Objected to, Spacing of Lines

The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).

¶ 7.29.04 Disclosure Objected To, Embedded Hyperlinks or Other Forms of Browser-Executable Code

The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.

Examiner Note:

1. Examples of a hyperlink or a browser-executable code are a URL placed between these symbols "< >" and "http://" followed by a URL address. Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence data placed between the symbols "< >" are not considered to be hyperlinks and/or browser-executable code.

2. If the application attempts to incorporate essential or nonessential subject matter into the patent application by reference to the contents of the site to which a hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code is directed, use form paragraph 6.19 or 6.19.01 instead. See also MPEP § 608.01(p).

3. The requirement to delete an embedded hyperlink or other form of browser-executable code does not apply to electronic documents listed on forms PTO-892 and PTO/SB/08B where the electronic document is identified by reference to a URL.

4. Examiners should not object to hyperlinks where the hyperlinks and/or browser-executable codes themselves (rather than the contents of the site to which the hyperlinks are directed) are necessary to be included in the patent application in order to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and applicant does not intend to have those hyperlinks be active links.

¶ 7.30.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):

(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Examiner Note:

2. Form paragraphs 7.30.01 and 7.30.02 are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.

¶ 7.30.02 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):

(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Examiner Note:

2. Paragraphs 7.30.01 and 7.30.02 are to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.

¶ 7.30.03 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):

(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

Examiner Note:

2. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action when claim elements use "means" (or "step for") or otherwise invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.30.03.h and followed with form paragraph 7.30.05.

¶ 7.30.03.h Header for Claim Interpretation

CLAIM INTERPRETATION

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph may be used in a first Office action or when a claim interpretation issue first arises, and need only be used once in an application, when appropriate.

2. This form paragraph may be used to preface any clarifying remarks regarding claim interpretation that the examiner chooses to add to enhance the prosecution record.

3. This form paragraph should precede form paragraphs 7.30.03 and 7.30.05, when applicable.

¶ 7.30.05 Broadest Reasonable Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph: Use of "Means" (or "Step") in Claim Drafting and Rebuttable Presumptions Raised

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.

As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:

(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.

Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.

Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.

Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action the first time that a claim limitation uses "means" (or "step") or otherwise invokes treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by using a substitute term for "means" that serves as a generic placeholder.

2. This paragraph must be preceded with form paragraph 7.30.03 unless already cited in a previous Office action.

3. When a claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., it meets the three-prong test), to provide clarification the examiner may identify the structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification that supports the recited function by adding explanatory remarks after this paragraph.

4. When the presumptions raised are rebutted by the claim language, for example by not using "means" and failing to recite structure that performs the function, or by using "means" along with definite structure that performs the function, use form paragraph 7.30.06 and/or 7.30.07.

(a) Follow this form paragraph with form paragraph 7.30.06 when, despite the absence of the word "means," a claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

(b) Follow this form paragraph with form paragraph 7.30.07 when, despite the presence of the word "means," a claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

5. A claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, that raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and/or second paragraphs, respectively, should also be addressed, as appropriate. See MPEP § 2185.

¶ 7.30.06 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Invoked Despite Absence of "Means"

This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: [1] in claim [2].

Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.

If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action the first time that a claim limitation invokes treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph by using a substitute term for "means" that serves as a generic placeholder.

2. In bracket 1, identify each claim limitation, and in bracket 2 indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears.

3. This paragraph must be preceded with form paragraph 7.30.05 unless already cited in a previous Office action.

¶ 7.30.07 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Not Invoked Despite Presence of "Means" or "Step"

This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word "means" or "step" but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: [1] in claim [2].

Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.

If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this paragraph ONLY ONCE in a given Office action the first time that a claim limitation includes the word "means" or "step" but does not invoke treatment under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the recited function are present.

2. In bracket 1, identify each claim limitation, and in bracket 2 indicate the claim(s) in which each respective limitation appears.

3. This paragraph must be preceded with form paragraph 7.30.05 unless already cited in a previous Office action.

¶ 7.31.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Description Requirement, Including New Matter Situations

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert --is-- or --are-- as appropriate.

3. In bracket 2, identify (by suitable reference to page and line numbers and/or drawing figures) the subject matter not properly described in the application as filed, and provide an explanation of your position. The explanation should include any questions the examiner asked which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.

¶ 7.31.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Enablement

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. If the problem is one of scope, form paragraph 7.31.03 should be used.

3. In bracket 2, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is not enabling. Also explain why the specification is not enabling, applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) as appropriate. See also MPEP §§ 2164.01(a) and 2164.04. The explanation should include any questions the examiner may have asked which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to enablement.

4. Where an essential component or step of the invention is not recited in the claims, use form paragraph 7.33.01.

¶ 7.31.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph: Scope of Enablement

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for [2], does not reasonably provide enablement for [3]. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to [4] the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. [5]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert --is-- or --are-- as appropriate.

3. This form paragraph is to be used when the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the scope of the enabling disclosure.

4. In bracket 2, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is enabling. This may be by reference to specific portions of the specification.

5. In bracket 3, identify aspect(s) of the claim(s) for which the specification is not enabling.

6. In bracket 4, fill in only the appropriate portion of the statute, i.e., one of the following: --make--, --use--, or --make and use--.

7. In bracket 5, identify the claimed subject matter for which the specification is not enabling. Also explain why the specification is not enabling, applying the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) as appropriate. See also MPEP §§ 2164.01(a) and 2164.04. The explanation should include any questions posed by the examiner which were not satisfactorily resolved and consequently raise doubt as to enablement.

¶ 7.31.04 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph: Best Mode Requirement

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon [2].

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, insert the basis for holding that the best mode has been concealed, e.g., the quality of applicant’s disclosure is so poor as to effectively result in concealment.

3. Use of this form paragraph should be rare. See MPEP §§ 2165- 2165.04.

¶ 7.31.05 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph: Scope of Enablement of a "Single Means" Claim

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert --is-- or --are-- as appropriate.

3. This form paragraph is to be used only when the claim recites a single element and that element is in means-plus-function format. This situation should be rare.

¶ 7.33.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph, Essential Subject Matter Missing From Claims (Enablement)

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without [2], which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). [3]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.01 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, recite the subject matter omitted from the claims.

3. In bracket 3, give the rationale for considering the omitted subject matter critical or essential.

4. The examiner shall cite the statement, argument, date, drawing, or other evidence which demonstrates that a particular feature was considered essential by the applicant, is not reflected in the claims which are rejected.

¶ 7.34 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Claim Inventor’s Invention

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 the applicant, regards as the invention. Evidence that claim [2] fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant, regards as the invention can be found in the reply filed [3]. In that paper, the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant, has stated [4], and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because [5].

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. This paragraph is to be used only where inventor or applicant has stated, somewhere other than in the application, as filed, that the invention is something different from what is defined in the claim(s).

3. In bracket 3, identify the submission by inventor or applicant (which is not the application, as filed, but may be in the remarks by applicant, in the brief, in an affidavit, etc.) by the date the paper was filed in the USPTO.

4. In bracket 4, set forth what inventor or applicant has stated in the submission to indicate a different invention.

5. In bracket 5, explain how the statement indicates an invention other than what is being claimed.

¶ 7.34.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim (Indefinite)

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 1, pluralize "Claim" if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert --is-- or --are-- as appropriate.

3. This form paragraph should be followed by one or more of the following form paragraphs 7.34.02 - 7.34.10, and/or 7.34.23 - 7.34.24 as applicable. If none of these form paragraphs are appropriate, a full explanation of the deficiency of the claims should be supplied. Whenever possible, identify the particular term(s) or limitation(s) which render the claim(s) indefinite and state why such term or limitation renders the claim indefinite. If the scope of the claimed subject matter can be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art, a rejection using this form paragraph would not be appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2171 - 2174 for guidance. See also form paragraph 7.34.15 for pro se applicants.

¶ 7.34.02 Terminology Used Inconsistent with Accepted Meaning

Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "[1]" in claim [2] is used by the claim to mean "[3]," while the accepted meaning is "[4]." The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 3, point out the meaning that is assigned to the term by applicant’s claims, taking into account the entire disclosure.

2. In bracket 4, point out the accepted meaning of the term. Support for the examiner’s stated accepted meaning should be provided through the citation of an appropriate reference source, e.g., textbook or dictionary. See MPEP § 2173.05(a).

3. This paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

4. This paragraph should only be used where the specification does not clearly redefine the claim term at issue.

¶ 7.34.03 Relative Term - Term of Degree Rendering Claim Indefinite

The term "[1]" in claim [2] is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "[1]" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. [3]

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 3, explain which parameter, quantity, or other limitation in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in bracket 1.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.04 Broader Range/Limitation And Narrow Range/Limitation in Same Claim

A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim [1] recites the broad recitation [2], and the claim also recites [3] which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the broader range/limitation and where it appears in the claim; in bracket 3, insert the narrow range/limitation and where it appears. This form paragraph may be modified to fit other instances of indefiniteness in the claims.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.05 Lack of Antecedent Basis in the Claims

Claim [1] recites the limitation [2] in [3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the limitation which lacks antecedent basis, for example --said lever-- or --the lever--.

2. In bracket 3, identify where in the claim(s) the limitation appears, for example, --line 3--, --the 3^rd paragraph of the claim--, --the last 2 lines of the claim--, etc.

3. This form paragraph should ONLY be used in aggravated situations where the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate. It must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.07 Claims Are a Literal Translation

The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.08 Indefinite Claim Language: "For Example"

Regarding claim [1], the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.09 Indefinite Claim Language: "Or The Like"

Regarding claim [1], the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.10 Indefinite Claim Language: "Such As"

Regarding claim [1], the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.34.01.

¶ 7.34.12 Essential Steps Omitted

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, recite the steps omitted from the claims.

3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted steps critical or essential.

¶ 7.34.13 Essential Elements Omitted

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, recite the elements omitted from the claims.

3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted elements critical or essential.

¶ 7.34.14 Essential Cooperative Relationships Omitted

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. In bracket 2, recite the structural cooperative relationships of elements omitted from the claims.

3. Give the rationale for considering the omitted structural cooperative relationships of elements being critical or essential.

¶ 7.34.15 Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 112, Pro Se

Claim [1] rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.

¶ 7.34.23 Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph: Claim Limitation is Interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth paragraph, but Disclosure of the Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing the Function Recited in a Claim Is Lacking, Insufficient, or Not Clearly Linked

Claim limitation "[1]" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. [2] Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

Applicant may:

(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ).

If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:

(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a) ); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, recite the limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

2. In bracket 2, explain why there is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function or why there is no clear linkage between the structure, material, or acts and the function. For example, explain that (i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.03.h, 7.30.03, and 7.30.05 (to set forth the claim interpretation and statutory basis for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), and then 7.30.02 or 7.103 and 7.34.01 (to set forth the statutory basis for the indefiniteness rejection and identify the claim at issue) and 7.30.06, if appropriate (invoked despite the absence of means).

4. When a rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because the disclosure is inadequate to support the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description should also be considered. See MPEP § 2181, subsection IV.

¶ 7.34.24 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph: Unclear Whether Claim Limitation Is To Be Interpreted Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph – Result of 3-Prong Test Inconclusive

Claim limitation [1] has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because [2]. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:

(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting "means" or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting "step." The "means," generic placeholder, or "step" must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph should be used after the examiner has attempted to perform the three-prong analysis from MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and is unable to conclude whether the claim limitation should be treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of ambiguous words in the claim. This situation should be rare.

2. In bracket 1, identify the claim and claim limitation that causes the claim to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.

3. In bracket 2, identify the reason that the three-prong test was inclusive. The possibilities include:

(a) the term "means" or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function;

(b) the term "step" is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys an act or a function;

(c) the claim limitation uses the word "means" or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function;

(d) the claim limitation uses the word "step" coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some act that is ambiguous regarding whether that act is sufficient for performing the claimed function.

4. This form paragraph may also be used in response to an applicant's reply in which applicant disputes the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See MPEP § 707.07(a) for guidance on when the second action may be made final.

5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraphs 7.30.03.h, 7.30.03, and 7.30.05 (to set forth the claim interpretation and statutory basis for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), and then 7.30.02 or 7.103 and 7.34.01 (to set forth the statutory basis for the indefiniteness rejection).

¶ 7.35 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim - Omnibus Claim

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.

Examiner Note:

1. This rejection must be preceded by form paragraph 7.30.02 or 7.103.

2. Use this paragraph to reject an "omnibus" type claim. No further explanation is necessary.

3. See MPEP § 1302.04(b) for cancellation of such a claim by examiner’s amendment upon allowance.

4. An example of an omnibus claim is: "A device substantially as shown and described."

¶ 7.35.01 Trademark or Trade Name as a Limitation in the Claim

Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2]. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe [3] and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the trademark/trade name and where it is used in the claim.

2. In bracket 3, specify the material or product which is identified or described in the claim by the trademark/trade name.

¶ 7.36 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Fourth Paragraph

The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):

(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:

Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

Examiner Note:

1. The statute is no longer being recited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.

2. Form paragraph 7.36 is to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.

¶ 7.36.01 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th Paragraph, Improper Dependent Claim

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. [2]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation.

2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that although the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, are related to matters of form, non-compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph ). Therefore, if a dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, the dependent claim should be rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.36.

¶ 7.37 Arguments Are Not Persuasive

Applicant’s arguments filed [1] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. The examiner must address all arguments which have not already been responded to in the statement of the rejection.

2. In bracket 2, provide explanation as to non-persuasiveness.

¶ 7.37.01 Unpersuasive Argument: Age of Reference(s)

In response to applicant’s argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.02 Unpersuasive Argument: Bodily Incorporation

In response to applicant’s argument that [1], the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of bodily incorporation.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.03 Unpersuasive Argument: Hindsight Reasoning

In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.04 Unpersuasive Argument: No Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation To Combine

In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, [1].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, explain where the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the rejection is found, either in the references, or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.05 Unpersuasive Argument: Nonanalogous Art

In response to applicant’s argument that [1] is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, [2].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, enter the name of the reference which applicant alleges is nonanalogous.

2. In bracket 2, explain why the reference is analogous art.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.06 Unpersuasive Argument: Number of References

In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.07 Unpersuasive Argument: Applicant Obtains Result Not Contemplated by Prior Art

In response to applicant’s argument that [1], the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of results not contemplated by the prior art.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.08 Unpersuasive Argument: Arguing Limitations Which Are Not Claimed

In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [1]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, recite the features upon which applicant relies, but which are not recited in the claim(s).

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.09 Unpersuasive Argument: Intended Use

In response to applicant’s argument that [1], a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of intended use.

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.10 Unpersuasive Argument: Limitation(s) in Preamble

Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) [1]. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation [2] is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, identify the claim(s) the applicant’s unpersuasive argument addresses.

2. In bracket 2, briefly restate the recitation about which applicant is arguing.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.11 Unpersuasive Argument: General Allegation of Patentability

Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.12 Unpersuasive Argument: Novelty Not Clearly Pointed Out

Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.37.13 Unpersuasive Argument: Arguing Against References Individually

In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.

¶ 7.38 Arguments Are Moot Because of New Ground of Rejection

Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) [1] have been considered but are 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.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the claim number(s).

2. The examiner must, however, address any arguments presented by the applicant which are still relevant to any references being applied.

¶ 7.38.01 Arguments Persuasive, Previous Rejection/Objection Withdrawn

Applicant’s arguments, see [1], filed [2], with respect to [3] have been fully considered and are persuasive. The [4] of [5] has been withdrawn.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection/objection.

2. In bracket 3, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.

3. In bracket 4, insert rejection or objection.

4. In bracket 5, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.

¶ 7.38.02 Arguments Persuasive, New Ground(s) of Rejection

Applicant’s arguments, see [1], filed [2], with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) [3] under [4] have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of [5].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection.

2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s).

3. In bracket 4, insert the statutory basis for the previous rejection.

4. In bracket 5, insert the new ground(s) of rejection, e.g., different interpretation of the previously applied reference, newly found prior art reference(s), and provide an explanation of the rejection.

¶ 7.39 Action Is Final

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 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 mailing date of this final action.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP- 1 or 2 months).

2. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.

¶ 7.39.01 Final Rejection, Options for Applicant, Pro Se

This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.

If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the required appeal fee of $[1].

If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.

A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.

Examiner Note:

The form paragraph must be preceded by any one of form paragraphs 7.39, 7.40, 7.40.01, 7.41, 7.42.03.fti, or 7.42.09.

¶ 7.40 Action Is Final, Necessitated by Amendment

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).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP- 1 or 2 months).

2. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.

¶ 7.40.01 Action Is Final, Necessitated by IDS With Fee

Applicant’s submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on [1] prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should not be used and a final rejection is improper where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner that was not necessitated by amendment to the claims.

2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the information disclosure statement containing the identification of the item of information used in the new ground of rejection.

¶ 7.40.02.aia Action Is Final, Necessitated by Invoking the Joint Research Agreement Prior Art Exclusion Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)

Applicant’s submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) on [1] prompted the new double patenting rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 2156. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph should not be used, and a final rejection is improper, where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner that was not necessitated by amendment to the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).

3. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion as defined under 35 U.S.C. 102(c).

¶ 7.40.02.fti Action Is Final, Necessitated by Invoking the Joint Research Agreement Prior Art Exclusion Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)

Applicant’s submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) on [1] prompted the new double patenting 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).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should not be used and a final rejection is improper where there is another new ground of rejection introduced by the examiner that was not necessitated by amendment to the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17.

2. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the submission of the requirements for the joint research agreement prior art exclusion under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c).

¶ 7.41 Action Is Final, First Action

This is a [1] of applicant’s earlier Application No. [2]. All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert either --continuation-- or --substitute--, as appropriate.

2. If an amendment was refused entry in the parent case on the grounds that it raised new issues or new matter, this form paragraph cannot be used. See MPEP § 706.07(b).

3. This form paragraph should not be used in reissue litigation cases (SSP- 1 month) or in reexamination proceedings (SSP-1 or 2 months).

4. 37 CFR 1.136(a) should not be available in a reissue litigation case and is not available in reexamination proceedings.

¶ 7.41.01.fti Transitional After Final Practice, First Submission (37 CFR 1.129(a))

This application is subject to the provisions of Public Law 103-465, effective June 8, 1995. Accordingly, since this application has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference to an earlier-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), applicant, under 37 CFR 1.129(a), is entitled to have a first submission entered and considered on the merits if, prior to abandonment, the submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. Upon the timely filing of a first submission and the appropriate fee of $[1] for a [2] entity under 37 CFR 1.17(r), the finality of the previous Office action will be withdrawn. If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant will be construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). In view of 35 U.S.C. 132, no amendment considered as a result of payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of the application.

If applicant has filed multiple proposed amendments which, when entered, would conflict with one another, specific instructions for entry or non-entry of each such amendment should be provided upon payment of any fee under 37 CFR 1.17(r).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph may follow any of form paragraphs 7.39 - 7.41 in any application filed prior to June 9, 1995, which has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to a previously filed application and no previous fee has been paid under 37 CFR 1.17(r).

2. This form paragraph should NOT be used in a design or reissue application, or in a reexamination proceeding.

3. In bracket 1, insert the current fee for a large or small entity, as appropriate.

4. In bracket 2, insert --small-- or --large--, depending on the current status of the application.

¶ 7.41.02.fti Transitional After Final Practice, Second Submission (37 CFR 1.129(a))

Since the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) for a first submission subsequent to a final rejection has been previously paid, applicant, under 37 CFR 1.129(a), is entitled to have a second submission entered and considered on the merits if, prior to abandonment, the second submission and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) are filed prior to the filing of an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. Upon the timely filing of a second submission and the appropriate fee of $[1] for a [2] entity under 37 CFR 1.17(r), the finality of the previous Office action will be withdrawn. If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant will be construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). In view of 35 U.S.C. 132, no amendment considered as a result of payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) may introduce new matter into the disclosure of the application.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is to follow any of form paragraphs 7.39 - 7.41 in any application filed prior to June 9, 1995, which has been pending for at least two years as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to a previously filed application and a first submission fee has been previously paid under 37 CFR 1.17(r).

2. This form paragraph should NOT be used in a design or reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding.

3. In bracket 1, insert the current fee for a large or small entity, as appropriate.

4. In bracket 2, insert --small-- or --large--, depending on the current status of the application.

5. If the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) has been twice paid, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.129(a) are no longer available.

¶ 7.41.03 Action Is Final, First Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.53(d), Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) in a Design Application

All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the parent application prior to the filing of this Continued Prosecution Application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing under 37 CFR 1.53(d). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph is for a first action final rejection in a Continued Prosecution Application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) (design applications only).

2. This form paragraph must be preceded by one of form paragraphs 2.30 or 2.35, as appropriate.

¶ 7.42 Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action

Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.

¶ 7.42.01.fti Withdrawal of Finality of Last Office Action - Transitional Application Under 37 CFR 1.129(a)

Since this application is eligible for the transitional procedure of 37 CFR 1.129(a), and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.129(a). Applicant’s [1] submission after final filed on [2] has been entered.

Examiner Note:

Insert --first-- or --second-- in bracket 1.

¶ 7.42.02.fti Nonresponsive Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.129(a)

The timely submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This time period may be extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a). If a notice of appeal and the appeal fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b) were filed prior to or with the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r), the payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) by applicant is construed as a request to dismiss the appeal and to continue prosecution under 37 CFR 1.129(a). The appeal stands dismissed.

Examiner Note:

The reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive must be set forth in bracket 2.

¶ 7.42.03.fti Action Is Final, First Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.129(a) Filed Prior to June 8, 2005

All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.129(a). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a). See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

Also use form paragraph 7.41.02.fti if this is a final rejection following a first submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a).

¶ 7.42.031.fti Action Is Final, Action Following Submission Under 37 CFR 1.129(a) Filed On or After June 8, 2005

Under the final action practice for Office actions following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) filed on or after June 8, 2005, the next Office action following timely filing of a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) will be equivalent to the next Office action following a reply to a non-final Office action. Under existing Office second action final practice, such an Office action on the merits will be made final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP § 706.07(a).

In this Office action, there is no new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims or based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

Also use form paragraph 7.41.02.fti if this is a final rejection following a first submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a)

¶ 7.42.04 Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 after Final Rejection

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a final rejection.

2. In bracket 1, insert the date(s) of receipt of the submission. The submission may be a previously filed amendment(s) after final rejection and/or an amendment accompanying the RCE. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. If a reply to the Office action is outstanding the submission must meet the reply requirements of 37 CFR 1.111. Use instead form paragraph 7.42.08 if the submission does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111. Arguments which were previously submitted in a reply after final rejection, which were entered but not found persuasive, may be considered a submission under 37 CFR 1.114 if the arguments are responsive within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.111 to the outstanding Office action. If the last sentence of this form paragraph does not apply (e.g., the submission consists of previously entered arguments), it may be deleted or modified as necessary.

3. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.

¶ 7.42.05 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 After Allowance or Quayle Action

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a notice of allowance (or notice of allowability) or Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).

2. In bracket 1 insert the date(s) of receipt of the submission. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability.

4. If the RCE was filed after the issue fee was paid, a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 to withdraw the application from issue must have been filed and granted.

¶ 7.42.06 Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 After Appeal But Before A Board Decision

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief, but there has not been a decision on the appeal. Note that it is not necessary for an appeal brief to have been filed.

2. As set forth in 37 CFR 1.114, a submission may include an information disclosure statement, an amendment to the written description, claims, or drawings, new arguments, or new evidence in support of patentability. The submission may consist of arguments in a previously filed appeal brief or reply brief, or an incorporation of such arguments in the transmittal letter or other paper accompanying the RCE.

¶ 7.42.07 Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 after Board Decision but Before Further Appeal or Civil Action

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on [1] has been entered.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph if a request for continued examination (RCE), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, was timely filed after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board but before further appeal or civil action. Generally, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit or for commencing a civil action is sixty-three (63) days after the date of the final Board decision. See 37 CFR 90.3 and MPEP § 1216.

2. A Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an application has res judicata effect and is the "law of the case" and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. Therefore, a submission containing arguments without either an amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove such rejection. See MPEP § 2190, subsection II.

¶ 7.42.08 Request For Continued Examination With Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.114 Which is Not Fully Responsive

Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on [1]. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period for reply supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This time period may be extended pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph to acknowledge an RCE filed with the fee and a submission where the submission is not fully responsive to the prior Office action. This form paragraph may be used for any RCE filed with a submission which is not fully responsive, i.e., an RCE filed after final rejection, after allowance, after an Office action under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935), or after appeal.

2. In bracket 2, identify the reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive.

¶ 7.42.08.AE Request for Continued Examination With Submission Filed Under 37 CFR 1.114 Which Is Not Fully Responsive - Application Under Accelerated Examination

Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on [1]. The submission, however, is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because [2]. Since the submission appears to be a bona fide attempt to provide a complete reply to the prior Office action, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter, to submit a complete reply. This shortened statutory period for reply supersedes the time period set in the prior Office action. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. To meet that objective, any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.

Examiner Note:

2. In bracket 2, identify the reasons why the examiner considers the submission not to be fully responsive.

4. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

5. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.

¶ 7.42.09 Action Is Final, First Action Following Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114

All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph is for a first action final rejection following a Request for Continued Examination filed under 37 CFR 1.114.

¶ 7.42.10 Application On Appeal, Request For Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission/Fee; No Claims Allowed

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Since the proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and no claim is allowed, the application is abandoned. See MPEP § 1215.01.

Examiner Note:

1. If a request for continued examination was filed after a Notice of Appeal or after an appeal brief, but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) or a submission or both, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and hold the application abandoned if there are no allowed claims.

2. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.

¶ 7.42.11 Application On Appeal, Request For Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission; Claim Allowed

Examiner Note:

1. If a request for continued examination, including the fee, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or after an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required submission, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and pass the application to issue on the allowed claims.

2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s) of the claim(s) which has/have been canceled followed by either --has-- or --have--. Claims that have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim are to be considered as if they were rejected and therefore are to be canceled along with the rejected claims. See MPEP § 1215.01.

3. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.

4. To be eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, the application must be a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. The RCE must be filed on or after May 29, 2000.

¶ 7.42.12 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission; Claim Allowed with Formal Matters Outstanding

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) , was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. The proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim [2] provided the following formal matters are promptly corrected: [3]. Prosecution is otherwise closed. See MPEP § 1215.01. Applicant is required to make the necessary corrections addressing the outstanding formal matters within a shortened statutory period set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136, but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. If a request for continued examination, including the fee, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required submission, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal if there are allowed claims but outstanding formal matters need to be corrected.

2. In bracket 3, explain the formal matters that must be corrected.

¶ 7.42.13 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Fee; Claim Allowed

Examiner Note:

1. If a request for continued examination, including the submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the required fee, use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal and pass the application to issue on the allowed claims.

2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s) of the claim(s) which has/have been canceled followed by either --has-- or --have--. Claims which have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim are to be considered as if they were rejected and therefore are to be canceled along with the rejected claims. See MPEP § 1215.01.

3. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.

¶ 7.42.14 Application on Appeal, Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Fee; Claim Allowed With Formal Matters Outstanding

A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including a submission, was filed in this application on [1] after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Therefore, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e). Therefore, the submission has not been entered. See 37 CFR 1.116(c). The proceedings as to the rejected claims are considered terminated, and the application will be passed to issue on allowed claim[2] provided the following formal matters are promptly corrected: [3]. Prosecution is otherwise closed. See MPEP § 1215.01. Applicant is required to make the necessary corrections addressing the outstanding formal matters within a shortened statutory period set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136 but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. If a request for continued examination, including a submission, was filed after a Notice of Appeal or an appeal brief but before a decision on the appeal, and the request lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e), use this form paragraph to withdraw the appeal if there are allowed claims but outstanding formal matters need to be corrected.

2. In bracket 3, explain the formal matters that must be corrected.

¶ 7.42.15 Continued Prosecution Application Treated as Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114

The request for a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) filed on [1] is acknowledged. A CPA may only be filed in a design application filed under 35 U.S.C. chapter 16. See 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1). Since a CPA of this application is not permitted under 37 CFR 1.53(d)(1), the improper request for a CPA is being treated as a request for continued examination of this application under 37 CFR 1.114.

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph to advise the applicant that a CPA is being treated as an RCE.

2. Also use form paragraph 7.42.04, 7.42.05, 7.42.06, or 7.42.07 as applicable, to acknowledge entry of applicant’s submission if the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid.

3. If the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or a submission as required by 37 CFR 1.114 is/are missing and the application is not under appeal, a Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination should be mailed. If the application is under appeal and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or submission is/are missing, this form paragraph should be followed with one of form paragraphs 7.42.10 - 7.42.14, as applicable.

¶ 7.42.16 After Board Decision But Before Further Appeal Or Civil Action, Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 Without Submission and/or Fee

A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on [1] after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, the RCE is improper and any time period running was not tolled by the filing of the improper request.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should be used with the mailing of a Notice of Allowability or a Notice of Abandonment, as appropriate, if the time for seeking court review has passed without such review being sought, or it should be used on a PTOL-90 if time still remains.

2. This form paragraph should not be used if the application is not a utility application or a plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after June 8, 1995, or an international application filed under 35 U.S.C. 363 on or after June 8, 1995 that complies with 35 U.S.C. 371. In that situation, a "Notice of Improper Request for Continued Examination (RCE)," Form PTO-2051, should be prepared and mailed by the technical support personnel to notify applicant that continued examination does not apply to the application.

3. In general, if a submission was filed with the improper RCE in this situation, it should not be entered. An exception exists for an amendment that obviously places the application in condition for allowance. See MPEP § 1214.07. The examiner should also include a statement as to whether or not any such submission has been entered (e.g., "The submission filed with the improper RCE has not been entered.").

¶ 7.43 Objection to Claims, Allowable Subject Matter

Claim [1] 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.

¶ 7.43.01 Allowable Subject Matter, Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, Independent Claim/Dependent Claim

Claim [1] would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph is to be used when (1) the noted independent claim(s) or (2) the noted dependent claim(s), which depend from an allowable claim, have been rejected solely on the basis of35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection.

¶ 7.43.02 Allowable Subject Matter, Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, Dependent Claim

Claim [1] would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph is to be used only when the noted dependent claim(s), which depend from a claim that is rejected based on prior art, have been rejected solely on the basis of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and would be allowable if amended as indicated.

¶ 7.43.03 Allowable Subject Matter, Formal Requirements Outstanding

As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph would be appropriate when changes (for example, drawing corrections or corrections to the specification) must be made prior to allowance.

¶ 7.43.04 Suggestion of Allowable Drafted Claim(s), Pro Se

The following claim [1] drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, [2] presented to applicant for consideration:

[3].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert --is-- or --are--.

2. In bracket 3, insert complete text of suggested claim(s).

¶ 7.44 Claimed Subject Matter Not in Specification

The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: [1]

¶ 7.45 Improper Multiple Dependent Claims

Claim [1] objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim [2]. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim [3] not been further treated on the merits.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert --should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim--.

2. Use this paragraph rather than 35 U.S.C. 112(e) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), fifth paragraph.

3. In bracket 3, insert --has-- or --s have--.

¶ 7.46 Preliminary Amendment Unduly Interferes with the Preparation of an Office Action

The preliminary amendment filed on [1] was not entered because entry of the amendment would unduly interfere with the preparation of the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2). The examiner spent a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office action before the preliminary amendment was received. On the date of receipt of the amendment, the examiner had completed [2].

Furthermore, entry of the preliminary amendment would require significant additional time on the preparation of the Office action. Specifically, entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to [3].

A responsive reply (under 37 CFR 1.111 or 37 CFR 1.113 as appropriate) to this Office action must be timely filed to avoid abandonment.

If this is not a final Office action, applicant may wish to resubmit the amendment along with a responsive reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to ensure proper entry of the amendment.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, provide the date that the Office received the preliminary amendment (use the date of receipt under 37 CFR 1.6, not the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR 1.8 ).

2. In bracket 2, provide an explanation on the state of preparation of the Office action as of the receipt date of the preliminary amendment. For example, where appropriate insert --the claim analysis and the search of prior art of all pending claims-- or --the drafting of the Office action and was waiting for the supervisory patent examiner’s approval--.

3. In bracket 3, provide a brief explanation of how entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to spend significant additional time in the preparation of the Office action. For example, where appropriate insert --conduct prior art search in another classification area that was not previously searched and required-- or --revise the Office action extensively to address the new issues raised and the new claims added in the preliminary amendment--.

¶ 7.48.aia Failure To Present Claims for Interference

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [2] based upon claim [3] of Patent No. [4].

Failure to present claims and/or take necessary steps for interference purposes after notification that interfering subject matter is claimed constitutes a disclaimer of the subject matter. This amounts to a concession that, as a matter of law, the patentee is the first inventor in this country. See In re Oguie, 517 F.2d 1382, 186 USPQ 227 (CCPA 1975).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and the application also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013, or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

2. This form paragraph should be used only after applicant has been notified that interference proceedings must be instituted before the claims can be allowed and applicant has refused to copy the claims.

3. In bracket 2, insert --102(g)-- or --102(g)/103(a)--.

4. In bracket 4, insert the patent number, and --in view of _____-- if another reference is also relied upon. When the rejection is under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g) /103(a), the examiner’s basis for a finding of obviousness should be included. Note that interferences may include obvious variants, see MPEP Chapter 2300.

5. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.14.aia, or by form paragraph 7.103.

¶ 7.48.fti Failure To Present Claims for Interference

Claim [1] rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. [2] based upon claim [3] of Patent No. [4].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should be used only after applicant has been notified that interference proceedings must be instituted before the claims can be allowed and applicant has refused to copy the claims.

2. In bracket 2, insert --102(g)-- or --102(g)/103(a)--.

3. In bracket 4, insert the patent number, and --in view of _____-- if another reference is also relied upon. When the rejection is under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner’s basis for a finding of obviousness should be included. Note that interferences may include obvious variants, see MPEP Chapter 2300.

¶ 7.49 Rejection, Disclaimer, Failure To Appeal

An adverse judgment against claim [1] has been entered by the Board. Claim [2] stand(s) finally disposed of for failure to reply to or appeal from the examiner’s rejection of such claim(s) presented for interference within the time for appeal or civil action specified in 37 CFR 90.3. Adverse judgment against a claim is a final action of the Office requiring no further action by the Office to dispose of the claim permanently. See 37 CFR 41.127(a)(2).

¶ 7.50 Claims Previously Allowed, Now Rejected, New Art

The indicated allowability of claim [1] is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to [2]. Rejection(s) based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the name(s) of the newly discovered reference.

2. Any action including this form paragraph requires the signature of a Primary Examiner. MPEP § 1004.

¶ 7.51 Quayle Action

This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters: [1].

Prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).

A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of time may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136 but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this Office action beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

Explain the formal matters which must be corrected in bracket 1.

¶ 7.51.AE Quayle Action - Application Under Accelerated Examination

This application is in condition for allowance except for the following formal matters: [1].

Prosecution on the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 OG 213 (Comm’r Pat. 1935).

Since this application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program, a shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. Explain the formal matters which must be corrected in bracket 1.

2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

3. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.

¶ 7.52 Suspension of Action, Awaiting New Reference

A reference relevant to the examination of this application may soon become available. Ex parte prosecution is SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF [1] MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon expiration of the period of suspension, applicant should make an inquiry as to the status of the application.

Examiner Note:

1. Maximum period for suspension is six months.

2. The TC Director must approve all second or subsequent suspensions, see MPEP § 1003.

3. The TC Director’s signature must appear on the letter granting any second or subsequent suspension.

¶ 7.53 Suspension of Action, Possible Interference

All claims are allowable. However, due to a potential interference, ex parte prosecution is SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF [1] MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Upon expiration of the period of suspension, applicant should make an inquiry as to the status of the application.

Examiner Note:

1. Maximum period for suspension is six months.

2. The TC Director must approve all second or subsequent suspensions, see MPEP § 1003.

3. The TC Director’s signature must appear on the letter granting any second or subsequent suspension.

¶ 7.54 Suspension of Action, Applicant’s Request

Pursuant to applicant’s request filed on [1], action by the Office is suspended on this application under 37 CFR 1.103(a) for a period of [2] months. At the end of this period, applicant is required to notify the examiner and request continuance of prosecution or a further suspension. See MPEP § 709.

Examiner Note:

1. Maximum period for suspension is 6 months.

2. Only the Technology Center Director can grant second or subsequent suspensions. See MPEP § 1002.02(c). Such approval must appear on the Office letter.

¶ 7.54.01 Request for Deferral of Examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d), Granted

Applicant’s request filed on [1], for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) in the application has been approved. The examination of the application will be deferred for a period of [2] months.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for deferral of examination.

2. In bracket 2, insert the number of months for the deferral.

¶ 7.54.02 Request for Termination of a Suspension of Action, Granted

Applicant’s request filed on [1], for termination of a suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103, has been approved. The suspension of action has been terminated on the date of mailing this notice.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for termination of the suspension of action.

¶ 7.56 Request for Suspension, Denied, Outstanding Office Action

Applicant’s request filed [1], for suspension of action in this application under 37 CFR 1.103(a), is denied as being improper. Action cannot be suspended in an application awaiting a reply by the applicant. See MPEP § 709.

¶ 7.56.01 Request for Suspension of Action under 37 CFR 1.103, Denied

Applicant’s request filed [1], for suspension of action in this application under 37 CFR 1.103(b) or (c) is denied as being improper. The request was (1) not filed at the time of filing a CPA or RCE, and/or (2) not accompanied by the requisite fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). See MPEP § 709.

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for suspension of action.

¶ 7.56.02 Request for Deferral of Examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d), Denied

Applicant’s request filed on [1], for deferral of examination under 37 CFR 1.103(d) in the application is denied as being improper. [2]

See MPEP § 709.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert the filing date of the request for deferral of examination.

2. In bracket 2, insert the reason(s) for denying the request. For example, if appropriate insert --The applicant has not filed a request under 37 CFR 1.213(b) to rescind the previously filed nonpublication request--; --A first Office action has been issued in the application--; or --Applicant has not submitted a request for voluntary publication under 37 CFR 1.221 --.

¶ 7.57.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective- Heading

The [1] filed on [2] under 37 CFR 1.131(a) has been considered but is ineffective to overcome the [3] reference.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

2. This form paragraph must be followed by one or more of form paragraphs 7.58.fti to 7.63.fti or a paragraph setting forth proper basis for the insufficiency, such as failure to establish acts performed in this country, or that the scope of the declaration or affidavit is not commensurate with the scope of the claim(s).

¶ 7.58.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Claiming Same Invention

The [1] reference is a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication of a pending or patented application that claims the rejected invention. An affidavit or declaration is inappropriate under 37 CFR 1.131(a) when the reference is claiming interfering subject matter as defined in 37 CFR 41.203(a), see MPEP Chapter 2300. If the reference and this application are not commonly owned, the reference can only be overcome by establishing priority of invention through interference proceedings. See MPEP Chapter 2300 for information on initiating interference proceedings. If the reference and this application are commonly owned, the reference may be disqualified as prior art by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c). See MPEP § 718.

Examiner Note:

1. If used to respond to the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a), this paragraph must be preceded by paragraph 7.57.fti.

2. This form paragraph may be used without form paragraph 7.57.fti when an affidavit has not yet been filed, and the examiner desires to notify applicant that the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131(a) would be inappropriate.

¶ 7.59.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Reduction to Practice Before Reference Date

The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish a reduction to practice of the invention in this country or a NAFTA or WTO member country prior to the effective date of the [1] reference. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.

2. An explanation of the lack of showing of the alleged reduction to practice must be provided in bracket 2.

¶ 7.60.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Reference Is a Statutory Bar

The [1] reference is a statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and thus cannot be overcome by an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.

¶ 7.61.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Conception

The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish a conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the [1] reference. While conception is the mental part of the inventive act, it must be capable of proof, such as by demonstrative evidence or by a complete disclosure to another. Conception is more than a vague idea of how to solve a problem. The requisite means themselves and their interaction must also be comprehended. See Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 1897 C.D. 724, 81 OG 1417 (D.C. Cir. 1897). [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.

2. An explanation of the deficiency in the showing of conception must be presented in bracket 2.

3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish either diligence or a subsequent reduction to practice, this form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 7.62.fti and/or 7.63.fti. If either diligence or a reduction to practice is established, a statement to that effect should follow this paragraph.

¶ 7.62.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Diligence Lacking

The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish diligence from a date prior to the date of reduction to practice of the [1] reference to either a constructive reduction to practice or an actual reduction to practice. [2]

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.

2. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish conception, this paragraph must also be preceded by form paragraph 7.61.fti. If the affidavit establishes conception, a statement to that effect should be added to this paragraph.

3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish an alleged reduction to practice prior to the application filing date, this paragraph must be followed by form paragraph 7.63.fti. If such an alleged reduction to practice is established, a statement to that effect should be added to this paragraph.

4. An explanation of the reasons for a holding of non-diligence must be provided in bracket 2.

5. See MPEP § 715.07(a) which explains that diligence is not required after reduction to practice.

¶ 7.63.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Ineffective, Insufficient Evidence of Actual Reduction to Practice

The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish applicant’s alleged actual reduction to practice of the invention in this country or a NAFTA or WTO member country after the effective date of the [1] reference. [2].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.57.fti.

2. If the alleged reduction to practice is prior to the effective date of the reference, do not use this paragraph. See form paragraph 7.59.fti.

3. If the affidavit additionally fails to establish either conception or diligence, form paragraphs 7.61.fti and/or 7.62.fti should precede this paragraph. If either conception or diligence is established, a statement to that effect should be included after this paragraph.

4. An explanation of the lack of showing of the alleged reduction to practice must be given in bracket 2.

¶ 7.64.fti Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.131(a): Effective To Overcome Reference

The [1] filed on [2] under 37 CFR 1.31(a) is sufficient to overcome the [3] reference.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.

3. In bracket 3, insert the name of the reference.

¶ 7.65 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Effective To Withdraw Rejection

The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.

3. In bracket 3, insert the affected claim or claims.

4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has been overcome, including the statutory grounds, e.g.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility under 35 U.S.C. 101; inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.

¶ 7.66 Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132: Insufficient

The [1] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed [2] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [3] based upon [4] as set forth in the last Office action because:

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

2. In bracket 2, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.

3. In bracket 3, insert the claim or claims affected.

4. In bracket 4, indicate the rejection that has not been overcome, including the statutory grounds, i.e.: insufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph; lack of utility and/or inoperativeness under 35 U.S.C. 101; a specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103; etc. See MPEP § 716.

5. Following this form paragraph, set forth the reasons for the insufficiency; e.g., categories include: --untimely--; --fails to set forth facts--; --facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue--;--showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims--; etc. See MPEP § 716. Also include a detailed explanation of the reasons why the affidavit or declaration is insufficient. Any of form paragraphs 7.66.01 - 7.66.05 may be used, as appropriate.

¶ 7.66.01 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Affiant Has Never Seen Invention Before

It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.

2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.

¶ 7.66.02 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Invention Works as Intended

It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.

2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.

¶ 7.66.03 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Refers Only to Invention, Not to Claims

It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.

2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.

¶ 7.66.04 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: No Evidence of Long-Felt Need

It states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art. However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.

2. A full explanation must be provided, if appropriate.

¶ 7.66.05 Reason Why Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.132 Is Insufficient: Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should be presented as a conclusion to your explanation of why the affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 is insufficient, and it must be preceded by form paragraph 7.66.

¶ 7.67.aia Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130: Effective to Disqualify a Reference as Prior Art Via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)

The [1] under 37 CFR 1.130 [2] filed on [3] is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [4] based on [5]. [6]

Examiner Note:

2. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

3. In bracket 2, insert either --(a)-- or --(b)--.

4. In bracket 3, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration

5. In bracket 4, insert the affected claim or claims.

6. In bracket 5, insert the specific reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that the affidavit or declaration has disqualified as prior art.

7. In bracket 6, insert the explanation of how the affidavit/declaration provides evidence of reliance on one of the exception provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2).

¶ 7.68.aia Affidavit or Declaration Under 37 CFR 1.130: Ineffective to Disqualify a Reference as Prior Art Via 35 U.S.C. 102(b)

The [1] under 37 CFR 1.130 [2] filed [3] is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim [4] based upon [5] as set forth in the last Office action because [6]:

Examiner Note:

2. In bracket 1, insert either --affidavit-- or --declaration--.

3. In bracket 2, insert either --(a)-- or --(b)--.

4. In bracket 3, insert the filing date of the affidavit or declaration.

5. In bracket 4, insert the affected claim or claims.

6. In bracket 5, insert the rejection that has not been overcome, including statutory grounds.

7. In bracket 6, insert the explanation of how the affidavit or declaration fails to provide evidence of reliance on one of the exception provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2).

¶ 7.70.AE Updated Accelerated Examination Support Document Required for Claim Amendments Not Encompassed by Previous Accelerated Examination Support Document(s) – Application Under Accelerated Examination

Applicant is reminded that for any amendments to the claims (including any new claim) that is not encompassed by the preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents previously filed, applicant is required to provide updated preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents that encompass the amended or new claims at the time of filing the amendment. Failure to provide such updated preexamination search and accelerated examination support documents at the time of filing the amendment will cause the amendment to be treated as not fully responsive and not to be entered. See MPEP § 708.02(a), subsection VIII.D. for more information.

If the reply is not fully responsive, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph and form paragraph 7.71.AE must be included in every Office action, other than a notice of allowance, in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

2. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway Program (pilot and permanent).

¶ 7.71.AE Use Of Proper Document and Fee Codes When Filing A Reply Electronically Via EFS-Web – Application Under Accelerated Examination

Any reply or other papers must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the papers are not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.

Any reply to this communication filed via EFS-Web must include a document that is filed using the document description of "Accelerated Exam - Transmittal amendment/reply." Applicant is reminded to use proper indexing for documents to avoid any delay in processing of follow on papers. Currently document indexing is not automated in EFS-Web and applicant must select a particular document description for each attached file. An incorrect document description for a particular file may potentially delay processing of the application. A complete listing of all document codes currently supported in EFS-Web is available at www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/ efsweb_document_descriptions.xls.

Any payment of fees via EFS-Web must be accompanied by selection of a proper fee code. An improper fee code may potentially delay processing of the application. Instructions on payment of fees via EFS-Web are available at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph and form paragraph 7.70.AE must be included in every Office action, other than a notice of allowance, in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

¶ 7.81 Correction Letter Re Last Office Action

In response to applicant’s [1] regarding the last Office action, the following corrective action is taken.

The period for reply of [2] MONTHS set in said Office action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert --telephone inquiry of _____-- or --communication dated ______--.

2. In bracket 2, insert new period for reply.

3. This form paragraph must be followed by one or more of form paragraphs 7.82, 7.82.01 or 7.83.

4. Before restarting the period, the SPE should be consulted.

¶ 7.82 Correction of Reference Citation

The reference [1] was not correctly cited in the last Office action. The correct citation is shown on the attached PTO-892.

Examiner Note:

1. Every correction MUST be reflected on a corrected or new PTO-892.

2. This form paragraph must follow form paragraph 7.81.

3. If a copy of the PTO-892 is being provided without correction, use form paragraph 7.83 instead of this form paragraph.

4. Also use form paragraph 7.82.01 if reference copies are being supplied.

¶ 7.82.01 Copy of Reference(s) Furnished

Copies of the following references not previously supplied are enclosed:

Examiner Note:

1. The USPTO ceased mailing paper copies of U.S. patents and U.S. application publications cited in Office Actions in nonprovisional applications beginning in June 2004. See the phase-in schedule of the E-Patent Reference program provided in "USPTO to Provide Electronic Access to Cited U.S. Patent References with Office Actions and Cease Supplying Paper Copies," 1282 OG 109 (May 18, 2004). Therefore, this form paragraph should only be used for foreign patent documents, non-patent literature, pending applications that are not stored in the image file wrapper (IFW) system, and other information not previously supplied.

2. The reference copies being supplied must be listed following this form paragraph.

3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.81 and may also be used with form paragraphs 7.82 or 7.83.

¶ 7.82.03 How To Obtain Copies of U.S. Patents and U.S. Patent Application Publications

In June 2004, the USPTO ceased mailing paper copies of cited U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications with all Office actions. See "USPTO to Provide Electronic Access to Cited U.S. Patent References with Office Actions and Cease Supplying Paper Copies," 1282 OG 109 (May 18, 2004). Foreign patent documents and non-patent literature will continue to be provided to the applicant on paper.

All U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications are available free of charge from the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html), for a fee from the Office of Public Records (http://ebiz1.uspto.gov/oems25p/index.html), and from commercial sources. Copies are also available at the Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs). A list of the PTRCs may be found on the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/products/library/ptdl/locations/index.jsp). Additionally, a feature of the Office’s Private Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR), E-Patent Reference, permits downloading and printing of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications cited in U.S. Office Actions.

STEPS TO USE THE E-PATENT REFERENCE FEATURE

Access to Private PAIR is required to utilize E-Patent Reference. If you do not already have access to Private PAIR, the Office urges practitioners and applicants not represented by a practitioner to: (1) obtain a verified USPTO.gov account; (2) obtain a USPTO customer number; (3) associate all of their pending and new application filings with their customer number; (4) install free software (supplied by the Office) required to access Private PAIR and the E-Patent Reference; and (5) make appropriate arrangements for Internet access.

Instructions for performing the 5 steps:

Step 1: Full instructions for obtaining a verified USPTO.gov account are available at the Office’s Electronic Business Center (EBC) web page (www.uspto.gov/ebc/downloads.html). Note that a notarized signature is required on the Patent Electronic System Verification Form.

Step 2: To get a Customer Number, download and complete the Customer Number Request form, PTO/SB/125, from the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0125.pdf). The completed form can be transmitted by facsimile to the Patent Electronic Business Center at (571) 273-0177, or mailed to the address on the form. If you are a registered attorney or agent, your registration number must be associated with your customer number. This association is accomplished by adding your registration number to the Customer Number Request form.

Step 3: A description of associating a customer number with the correspondence address of an application is described at the EBC Web page (www.uspto.gov/ebc/registration_pair.html).

Step 4: The software for electronic filing is available for downloading at www.uspto.gov/ebc. Users can also contact the EFS Help Desk at (571) 272-4100 and request a copy of the software on compact disc. Users will also need Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available through a link from the USPTO website.

Step 5: Internet access will be required which applicants may obtain through a supplier of their own choice. As images of large documents must be downloaded, high-speed Internet access is recommended.

The E-Patent Reference feature is accessed using a button on the Private PAIR screen. Ordinarily all of the cited U.S. patent and U.S. patent application publication references will be available over the Internet using the Office’s new E-Patent Reference feature. The size of the references to be downloaded will be displayed by E-Patent Reference so the download time can be estimated. Applicants and registered practitioners can select to download all of the references or any combination of cited references. Selected references will be downloaded as complete documents in Portable Document Format (PDF). The downloaded documents can be viewed and printed using commercially available software, such as ADOBE® READER®. ADOBE® READER® is available free of charge from Adobe Systems Incorporated (www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html).

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph is recommended for use in Office actions citing U.S. patents or U.S. patent application publications when the applicant is not represented by a registered patent attorney or a registered patent agent.

¶ 7.83 Copy of Office Action Supplied

[1] of the last Office action is enclosed.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, explain what is enclosed. For example:

a. "A corrected copy"

b. "A complete copy"

c. A specific page or pages, e.g., "Pages 3-5"

d. "A Notice of References Cited, Form PTO-892"

2. This form paragraph should follow form paragraph 7.81 and may follow form paragraphs 7.82 and 7.82.01.

¶ 7.84 Amendment Is Non-Responsive to Interview

The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the [2] interview. [3] Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the date of the interview.

2. In bracket 3, explain the deficiencies.

¶ 7.84.AE Amendment Is Non-Responsive to Interview – Application Under Accelerated Examination

The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to include a complete or accurate record of the substance of the [2] interview. [3] Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, insert the date of the interview.

2. In bracket 3, explain the deficiencies.

3. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or on other grounds under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

4. This form paragraph should not be used for an application that has been granted special status under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) on the basis of applicant’s health or age, or the Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program.

¶ 7.84.01 Paper Is Unsigned

¶ 7.84.01.AE Paper Is Unsigned – Application Under Accelerated Examination

The proposed reply filed on [1] has not been entered because it is unsigned. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. Examiner should first try to contact applicant by telephone and ask for a properly signed reply or ratification of the reply. If attempts to contact applicant are unsuccessful, examiner may use this form paragraph in a letter requiring a properly signed reply or ratification if the reply is to a non-final Office action.

¶ 7.85 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 Entered

The amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.312 has been entered.

Examiner Note:

Use this form paragraph both for amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 that do not affect the scope of the claims (may be signed by primary examiner) and for amendments being entered under 37 CFR 1.312 which do affect the scope of the claims (requires signature of supervisory patent examiner). See MPEP § 714.16.

¶ 7.86 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1. 312 Entered in Part

The amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.312 has been entered-in-part. [2]

Examiner Note:

When an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 is proposed containing plural changes, some of which may be acceptable and some not, the acceptable changes should be entered. An indication of which changes have and have not been entered with appropriate explanation should follow in bracket 2.

¶ 7.87 Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.312 Not Entered

The proposed amendment filed on [1] under 37 CFR 1.312 has not been entered. [2]

Examiner Note:

The reasons for non-entry should be specified in bracket 2, for example:

--The amendment changes the scope of the claims.--

¶ 7.90 Abandonment, Failure to Reply

This application is abandoned in view of applicant’s failure to submit a proper reply to the Office action mailed on [1] within the required period for reply.

Examiner Note:

1. A letter of abandonment should not be mailed until after the period for requesting an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) has expired.

2. In pro se cases see form paragraph 7.98.02.

¶ 7.91 Reply Is Not Fully Responsive, Extension of Time Suggested

The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because: [2]. Since the period for reply set forth in the prior Office action has expired, this application will become abandoned unless applicant corrects the deficiency and obtains an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a).

The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. In no case may an applicant reply outside the SIX (6) MONTH statutory period or obtain an extension for more than FIVE (5) MONTHS beyond the date for reply set forth in an Office action. A fully responsive reply must be timely filed to avoid abandonment of this application.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 2, set forth why the examiner considers there to be a failure to take "complete and proper action" within the statutory period.

2. If the reply appears to be a bona fide attempt to respond with an inadvertent omission, do not use this form paragraph; instead use form paragraph 7.95.

¶ 7.95 Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments

The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.

¶ 7.95.AE Bona Fide, Non-Responsive Amendments – Application Under Accelerated Examination

The reply filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): [2]. See 37 CFR 1.111. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this notice within which to supply the omission or correction in order to avoid abandonment. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of this time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply, or where the application is subject to a final Office action. Under such cases, the examiner has no authority to grant an extension if the period for reply has expired. See form paragraph 7.91.

¶ 7.95.01 Lack of Arguments in Response

Applicant should submit an argument under the heading "Remarks" pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.95.

2. This form paragraph is intended primarily for use in pro se applications.

¶ 7.96 Citation of Relevant Prior Art

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. [1]

Examiner Note:

When such prior art is cited, its relevance should be explained in bracket 1 in accordance with MPEP § 707.05.

¶ 7.97 Claims Allowed

Claim [1] allowed.

¶ 7.98 Reply Is Late, Extension of Time Suggested

Applicant’s reply was received in the Office on [1], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the last Office action mailed on [2]. This application will become abandoned unless applicant obtains an extension of time to reply to the last Office action under 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

Since the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) do not apply to reexamination proceedings or to litigation related reissue applications, do not use this form paragraph in these cases.

¶ 7.98.01 Reply Is Late, Extension of Time Suggested, Pro Se

Applicant’s reply to the Office Action of [1] was received in the Patent and Trademark Office on [2], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the above noted Office action. The application will become abandoned unless applicant obtains an extension of the period for reply set in the above noted Office action. An extension of the reply period may be obtained by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) (copy of current fee schedule attached). The date on which the reply, the petition, and the fee have been filed is the date of the reply and also the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee due. The expiration of the time period is determined by the amount of the fee paid. Although 37 CFR 1.136(a) provides for payment of up to five months of extension, applicant is advised that in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to an Office action beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute in 35 U.S.C. 133.

Examiner Note:

Enclose a photocopy of current fee schedule with action so that applicant can determine the required fee.

¶ 7.98.02 Reply Is Late, Petition To Revive Suggested, Pro Se

Applicant’s reply to the Office Action of [1] was received in the Patent and Trademark Office on [2], which is after the expiration of the period for reply set in the last Office Action. Since no time remains for applicant to obtain an extension of the period for reply by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a), this application is abandoned. Applicant is advised that the abandonment of this application may only be overcome by filing a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137. A petition to revive may be appropriate if applicant’s failure to reply was unintentional, as set forth below.

A petition to revive an abandoned application on the grounds that the failure to reply was unintentional (37 CFR 1.137 ) must be accompanied by: (1) the required reply (which has been filed); (2) a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137 was unintentional; (3) any terminal disclaimer required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(d); and (4) the $[3] petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m). No consideration to the substance of a petition will be given until this fee is received. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.

The required items and fees must be submitted promptly under a cover letter entitled "Petition to Revive."

Further correspondence with respect to this matter should be addressed as follows:

By mail:

Mail Stop Petition

Commissioner for Patents

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

By FAX:

571-273-8300

Attn: Office of Petitions

Telephone inquiries with respect to this matter should be directed to the Office of Petitions Staff at (571) 272-3282. For more detailed information, see MPEP § 711.03(c).

¶ 7.100 Name And Number of Examiner To Be Contacted

Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to [1] at telephone number [2].

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.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph, form paragraph 7.101, or form paragraph 7.102 should be used at the conclusion of all actions.

2. In bracket 1, insert the name of the examiner designated to be contacted first regarding inquiries about the Office action. This could be either the non-signatory examiner preparing the action or the signatory examiner.

3. In bracket 2, insert the individual area code and phone number of the examiner to be contacted.

¶ 7.101 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- Non 5/4/9 Schedule

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [1] whose telephone number is [2]. The examiner can normally be reached on [3] from [4] to [5].

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [6], can be reached at telephone number [7]. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert your name.

2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.

3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. "Monday-Thursday" for an examiner off every Friday.

4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. "6:30 AM - 5:00 PM."

5. In bracket 6, insert your SPE’s name.

6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.

¶ 7.102 Telephone Inquiry Contacts- 5/4/9 Schedule

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, [7], can be reached at telephone number [8]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, insert your name.

2. In bracket 2, insert your individual area code and phone number.

3. In bracket 3, insert the days that you work every week, e.g. "Monday-Thursday" for an examiner off on alternate Fridays.

4. In brackets 4 and 5, insert your normal duty hours, e.g. "6:30 AM - 4:00 PM."

5. In bracket 6, insert the day in each pay-period that is your compressed day off, e.g. "Fridays" for an examiner on a 5/4/9 work schedule with the first Friday off.

6. In bracket 7, insert your SPE’s name.

7. In bracket 8, insert your SPE’s area code and phone number.

¶ 7.103 Statute Cited in Prior Office Action

The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.

¶ 7.104.aia Requirement for Information, Public Use or Sale or Other Public Availability

An issue of public use, on sale activity, or other public availability has been raised in this application. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]

Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the claims are being examined under 35 U.S.C. 102 /103 as amended by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.03.aia.

3. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability. See MPEP § 2133.03.

4. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having a shortened statutory period (SSP), in which case the period for reply will apply also to the requirement.

5. If sufficient evidence already exists to establish a prima facie case of public use, sale, or other public availability use form paragraph 7.16.aia to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). See MPEP § 2133.03.

¶ 7.104.fti Requirement for Information, Public Use or Sale

An issue of public use or on sale activity has been raised in this application. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b), additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]

Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.

2. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability. See MPEP § 2133.03.

3. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having an SSP, in which case the SSP will apply also to the requirement.

4. If sufficient evidence already exists to establish a prima facie case of public use or on sale, use form paragraph 7.16.fti to make a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 2133.03.

¶ 7.104.02 Requirement for Information, Rescission of Statement Under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78

Applicant submitted a rescission of the prior-filed 1.55 /1.78 statement which indicated that the application contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. In order for the examiner to properly consider patentability of the claimed invention, additional information regarding this issue is required as follows: [1]

Applicant is reminded that failure to fully reply to this requirement for information will result in a holding of abandonment.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This form paragraph should only be used in an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, where the applicant rescinded a statement pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 and clarification on the reasoning why pre-AIA law applies is needed.

3. Information sought should be restricted to that which is reasonably necessary for the examiner to render a decision on patentability.

4. In bracket 1, insert the information that is sought from the applicant.

5. A two month time period should be set by the examiner for reply to the requirement unless it is part of an Office action having a shortened statutory period (SSP), in which case the period for reply will apply also to the requirement.

¶ 7.105 Requirement for Information, Heading

Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph should appear at the beginning of any requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105, and should be followed by an explanation of why the required information is necessary for examination. Form paragraph 7.104.aia, 7.104.fti, 7.104.02 or 7.106 – 7.121 may be used as appropriate.

2. The requirement for information should conclude with form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.105.01 Stipulations of Facts Known to Applicant

In response to this requirement, please agree or disagree to the stipulation of each of the following assertions of facts:

[1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, specify each factual assertion, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to either agree or disagree to so stipulate. It is suggested that at the end of each assertion, the parenthetical phrase "(agree/disagree)" be appended to facilitate a reply by way of applicant marking up a copy of the requested stipulations.

¶ 7.105.02 Interrogatories of Facts Known to Applicant

In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:

[1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 –7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, specify each interrogatory question, in the form of a separate, numbered sentence, that the applicant is to answer. The scope of each query must be clearly set forth and the content of the expected reply is to be characterized as factual information.

¶ 7.106 Domain of Search

The information is required to extend the domain of search for prior art. Limited amounts of art related to the claimed subject matter are available within the Office, and are generally found in class [1] and subclasses [2], which describe [3]. A broader range of art to search is necessary to establish the level of knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the claimed subject matter art of [4].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 4, insert a description of the art claimed but not found in the classification system.

¶ 7.107 Level of Skill and Knowledge in the Art

The information is required to document the level of skill and knowledge in the art of [1].

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.108 Background Description

The information is required to complete the background description in the disclosure by documenting [1].

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.109 Products and Services Embodying Invention

The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of [1] and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.110 Art Suggested as Relevant

The information is required to enter in the record the art suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination in [1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant suggests that the art is relevant, e.g., the specification and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page thereof.

¶ 7.111 List of Keywords

In response to this requirement, please provide a list of keywords that are particularly helpful in locating publications related to the disclosed art of [1].

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.112 Citations for Electronically Searchable Databases or Other Indexed Collections

In response to this requirement, please provide a list of citations to electronically searchable databases or other indexed collections containing publications that document the knowledge within the disclosed art of [1].

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.113 Copy of Art Referred to in the Disclosure, But Not Submitted

In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of each of the following items of art referred to in the [1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, describe where in the application file applicant refers to art that has not been previously submitted, e.g., the specification and the relevant page thereof, or a paper received in the Office on a specified date and the relevant page thereof.

¶ 7.114 Copies of Publications Authored by Inventor(s)

In response to this requirement, please provide copies of each publication which any of the applicants authored or co-authored and which describe the disclosed subject matter of [1].

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.115 Art Relied Upon for Description of Prior Art

In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that is a source used for the description of the prior art in the disclosure. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of that publication’s contribution to the description of the prior art.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.

¶ 7.116 Art Relied Upon for Development of Invention

In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to developing [1]. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.

3. In bracket 1, insert a description of the most important inventive elements.

¶ 7.117 Art Relied Upon for Drafting Claimed Subject Matter

In response to this requirement, please provide the title, citation and copy of each publication that was relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This requirement is limited in that only those documents actually relied on, rather than documents believed to be relevant, are required.

¶ 7.118 Results of Applicant’s Prior Art Search

In response to this requirement, please state whether any search of prior art was performed. If a search was performed, please state the citation for each prior art collection searched. If any art retrieved from the search was considered material to demonstrating the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to the disclosed [1], please provide the citation for each piece of art considered and a copy of the art.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, describe the subject matter for which art is required.

¶ 7.119 Names of Products or Services Incorporating Claimed Invention

In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.120 Names of Products or Services Incorporating Disclosed Prior Art

In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art [1].

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. In bracket 1, specify the attributes of the prior art that most closely approximate the claimed subject matter to narrow the focus of the reply.

¶ 7.121 Details of Improvement Over the Prior Art

In response to this requirement, please state the specific improvements of the subject matter in claims [1] over the disclosed prior art and indicate the specific elements in the claimed subject matter that provide those improvements. For those claims expressed as means or steps plus function, please provide the specific page and line numbers within the disclosure which describe the claimed structure and acts.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

¶ 7.122 Submission of Only Pertinent Pages Where Document is Large

In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraphs 7.122 – 7.126 as appropriate.

2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes copies of publications.

¶ 7.123 Waiver of Fee and Statement Requirements for Certain Information Disclosures

The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of the requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.124 and either form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.

2. Use this form paragraph where the scope of the requirement for information specifically includes citations to and/or copies of publications.

¶ 7.124 Contents of Good Faith Reply

The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should be followed by form paragraph 7.125 or 7.126 as appropriate.

2. This form paragraph should appear in the conclusion of any requirement for information.

¶ 7.125 Conclusion of Requirement That Accompanies Office Action

This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information that accompanies an Office action. If the requirement for information is mailed without any other Office action, use form paragraph 7.126 instead.

2. Form paragraph 7.127 should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.

¶ 7.126 Conclusion Of Requirement Mailed Without Any Other Office Action

This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of [1] months. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.105, and should appear at the conclusion of any requirement for information mailed without any other Office action. If the requirement for information is mailed with an Office action, use form paragraph 7.125 instead.

2. The period for reply is ordinarily set for TWO (2) MONTHS.

¶ 7.126.AE Conclusion of Requirement Mailed Without Any Other Office Action – Application Under Accelerated Examination

This requirement is subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.134, 1.135 and 1.136 and has a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS. This application has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program. Extensions of time period may be granted under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, filing a petition for extension of time will result in the application being taken out of the accelerated examination program. In no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133 ).

The objective of the accelerated examination program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months from the filing date of the application. Any reply must be filed electronically via EFS-Web so that the papers will be expeditiously processed and considered. If the reply is not filed electronically via EFS-Web, the final disposition of the application may occur later than twelve months from the filing of the application.

Examiner Note:

2. This form paragraph may only be used in an application filed on or after August 25, 2006, that has been granted special status under the accelerated examination program or other provisions under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(2) or (d).

¶ 7.127 Conclusion of Office Action That Includes Requirement

This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.

Examiner Note:

This form paragraph should appear at the end of any Office action that includes an attached requirement for information.

¶ 7.147 Supplemental Reply Not Approved for Entry

The supplemental reply filed on [1] was not entered because supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right except as provided in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(ii). [2].

Examiner Note:

1. Use this form paragraph to notify applicant that the supplemental reply filed on or after October 21, 2004 is not approved for entry.

2. Do not use this form paragraph if the supplemental reply has been entered. Use the Office Action Summary (PTOL-326) or the Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), whichever is appropriate, to indicate that the Office action is responsive to the reply filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111 (b) and the supplemental reply.

3. Do not use this form paragraph if the supplemental reply was filed within the period during which action is suspended by the Office under 37 CFR 1.103(a) or (c). Such supplemental reply must be entered. If the supplemental reply filed during the suspended period is not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121, a notice of non-compliant amendment (PTOL-324) should be mailed to the applicant.

4. In bracket 1, provide the date that the Office received the supplemental reply (use the date of receipt under 37 CFR 1.6, not the certificate of mailing date under 37 CFR 1.8 ).

5. In bracket 2, insert a reason for non-entry as noted in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(i). For example, "The supplemental reply is clearly not limited to placement of the application in condition for allowance."

¶ 7.169 Advisory Action, Proposed Rejection of Claims, Before Appeal Brief

For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s) will be entered and the proposed rejection(s) detailed below will be included in the Examiner’s Answer. To be complete, such rejection(s) must be addressed in any brief on appeal.

Upon entry of the amendment(s) for purposes of appeal:

Claim(s) [1] would be rejected for the reasons set forth in [2] of the final Office action mailed [3].

Examiner Note:

1. In bracket 1, identify all the new or amended claim(s) that would be grouped together in a single rejection.

2. In bracket 2, identify the rejection by referring to either the paragraph number or the statement of the rejection (e.g., the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon A in view of B) in the final Office action under which the claims would be rejected on appeal.

3. Repeat this form paragraph for each group of claims subject to the same rejection(s).

4. Use this form paragraph if item 7 of the Advisory Action form, PTOL-303 (Rev. 9-04 or later) has been checked to indicate that the proposed amendment(s) will be entered upon appeal.

¶ 7.204 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information: Decision Held in Abeyance

In re Application of [1] : Appl. No.: [2] : RESPONSE TO PETITION Filed: [3] : UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4] :

This is a response to the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.

The decision on the petition will be held in abeyance until allowance of the application or mailing of an Ex parte Quayle action or a Notice of Abandonment, at which time the petition will be decided.

Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record. Petitioner states either: (A) that the information contains trade secret material, proprietary material and/or material that is subject to a protective order which has not been made public; or (B) that the information submitted was unintentionally submitted and the failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted, and the information has not otherwise been made public. The petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) has been paid.

The decision on the petition is held in abeyance because prosecution on the merits is not closed. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to make a final determination of whether or not the material requested to be expunged is "material," with "materiality" being defined as any information which the examiner considers as being important to a determination of patentability of the claims. Thus, the decision on the petition to expunge must be held in abeyance at this time.

During prosecution on the merits, the examiner will determine whether or not the identified document is considered to be "material." If the information is not considered by the examiner to be material, the information will be removed from the official file.

Examiner Note:

1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement.

2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:

(a) the information was not submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Information which is part of the original disclosure (specification including any claims, drawings, and any preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application) cannot be expunged under 37 CFR 1.59. Some papers entered into the application file, e.g., arguments made in an amendment, may be expunged under appropriate circumstance, however, the petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision; or

(b) the petition is also accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 requesting waiver of one of the requirements explicitly set forth in 37 CFR 1.59 (e.g., requesting expungement of part of the original disclosure).

3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.

4. In bracket 6, clearly identify the document which petitioner requests to expunge. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.

5. Mail with PTO-90C cover sheet.

¶ 7.205 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information Granted

In re Application of [1] : Appl. No.: [2] : DECISION ON PETITION Filed: [3] : UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4] :

This is a decision on the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.

The petition is granted.

Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record. Petitioner states that either (A) that the information contains trade secret material, proprietary material and/or material that is subject to a protective order which has not been made public; or (B) that the information submitted was unintentionally submitted and the failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted, and the information has not otherwise been made public. The petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) has been paid.

The information in question has been determined by the undersigned to not be material to the examination of the instant application.

Applicant is required to retain the expunged material(s) for the life of any patent which issues on the above-identified application.

The expunged material has been removed from the official file.

Enclosure: [8]

Examiner Note:

1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. Furthermore, a petition to expunge may not be granted unless the application has been allowed or is abandoned, or an Ex Parte Quayle action has been mailed.

2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:

3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.

4. In brackets 6 and 8, clearly identify the expunged document. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.

5. Mail with PTO-90C cover sheet.

¶ 7.206 Petition Under 37 CFR 1.59(b) To Expunge Information Dismissed

In re Application of [1] : Appl. No.: [2] : DECISION ON PETITION Filed: [3] : UNDER 37 CFR 1.59 For: [4] :

This is a decision on the petition under 37 CFR 1.59(b), filed [5], to expunge information from the above identified application.

The petition is dismissed.

Petitioner requests that a document entitled [6], filed [7], be expunged from the record.

"Materiality" is defined as any information which the examiner considers as being important to a determination of patentability of the claims.

The petition is deficient because: [8]

Examiner Note:

1. A Technology Center Director decides this petition only if the information was submitted either pursuant to MPEP § 724.02 or in an information disclosure statement. However, the petition should not be granted until the application has been allowed or abandoned, or an Ex parte Quayle action has been mailed.

2. The petition should be sent to the Office of Petitions for decision if:

3. This decision is printed with the USPTO letterhead.

4. In bracket 6, clearly identify the document which petitioner requests to expunge. For example, refer to the author and title of the document.

5. This form paragraph must be followed with one or more of form paragraphs 7.207 through 7.213.

¶ 7.207 Petition To Expunge, Conclusion, Lacks Fee

the petition was not accompanied by the required fee under 37 CFR1.17(g).

¶ 7.208 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, Material to Determination of Patentability

the information that petitioner requests to expunge is considered to be material to the determination of patentability because [1].

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, provide an explanation of basis for conclusion that information is material to the determination of patentability.

¶ 7.209 Petition To Expunge, Conclusion, Information Made Public

the information has been made public. [1]

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, provide explanation of basis for conclusion that information has been made public.

¶ 7.210 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Commitment to Retain Information

the petition does not contain a commitment on the part of petitioner to retain the information to be expunged for the period of any patent with regard to which such information is submitted.

¶ 7.211 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Clear Statement That Information is Trade Secret, Proprietary, and/or Subject to Protective Order, or that Submission Was Unintentional

the petition does not contain a clear statement that the information requested to be expunged is either: (1) a trade secret, proprietary, and/or subject to a protective order; or (2) was unintentionally submitted and failure to obtain its return would cause irreparable harm to the party who submitted the information or to the party in interest on whose behalf the information was submitted. [1]

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, indicate whether any such statement was provided and, if so, explain why such statement is not clear.

¶ 7.212 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Clear Identification of Information to be Expunged

the petition does not clearly identify the information requested to be expunged. [1]

Examiner Note:

In bracket 1, explain why the identification of the information requested to be expunged is not clear.

¶ 7.213 Petition to Expunge, Conclusion, No Statement That Petition Is Submitted By, or on Behalf of, Party in Interest Who Originally Submitted the Information

the petition does not contain a statement that the petition is being submitted by, or on behalf of, the party in interest who originally submitted the information.

¶ 7.214 Papers Not Returned, Pro Se

Papers in an application that has received a filing date pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53 ordinarily will not be returned. If applicant has not preserved copies of the papers, the Office will furnish copies at applicant’s expense. See 37 CFR 1.19 for a list of the current fees. See MPEP § 724.05 for information pertaining to petitions to expunge information.

MPEP Version

Navigation

¶ 7.01 Use of Unconventional Terminology, Cannot Be Examined

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.02 Disclosure Is Incomprehensible

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.03.aia Application Examined Under AIA First Inventor to File Provisions

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.03.fti Application Examined Under First to Invent provisions

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.04.01 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 101

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.04.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101/115

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.04.03 Human Organism

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.04.101.aia Statement of Statutory Bases, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.04.102.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 115— Improper Inventorship

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, -Heading Only- (Utility, Nonstatutory, Inoperative)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.01 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Not One of the Four Statutory Categories)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.016 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Nonstatutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.017 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, TC Director Approval for "Tentative Abstract Idea"

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.018 [Reserved]

¶ 7.05.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Utility Lacking

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.03 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 101, Inoperative

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.04 Utility Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), First Paragraph

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.06 Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.06.01 Claim Limitation Relating to a Tax Strategy Deemed To Be Within the Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.07.aia Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 102

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.07.fti Statement of Statutory Basis, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.08.aia 102(a)(1), Activity Before the Effective Filing Date of Claimed Invention

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.08.fti Pre-AIA 102(a), Activity by Another Before Invention by Applicant

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.09.fti Pre-AIA 102(b), Activity More Than One Year Prior to Filing

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.10.fti Pre-AIA 102(c), Invention Abandoned

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.11.fti Pre-AIA 102(d), Foreign Patenting

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.12.aia 102(a)(2), U.S. Patent, U.S. Patent Application Publication or WIPO Published Application That Names Another Inventor and Has an Earlier Effectively Filed Date

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.12.fti Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 102(e), Patent Application Publication or Patent to Another with Earlier Filing Date, in view of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002

Examiner Note:

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.13.fti Pre-AIA 102(f), Applicant Not the Inventor

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.14.aia Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.14.fti Pre-AIA 102(g), Priority of Invention

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) Patent or Publication, and (g)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.01.aia Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.01.fti Provisional Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Common Assignee, Common Applicant, or At Least One Common Joint Inventor

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.02.aia Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor(s)

Examiner Note:

¶ 7.15.02.fti Rejection, Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), Common Assignee, Applicant, or Joint Inventor

Examiner Note: