Looks like we are going to get the other patent.
I just read the Final Rejection documents today and it basically states all we have to do is file a Terminal Disclaimer and the patent is ours.
Looking good boys and girls, looking good.
One of many good things to come.
2013 - The Year of ELTP!
*NEW* PATENT UPDATE
12-06-2012 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
*NEW* IMAGE FILE WRAPPER - See below
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,182,836 are maintained for reasons of record in the previous office action filed on 09/07/2012.