"So I see its inclusion in the second OA as perhaps just the process at work and providing the opportunity to clear the obviousness hurdle. All IMHO of course. Opty "

Opty, I would have to agree FWIW. First, appreciate your insight and breakdown of the '148. I always enjoy reading your posts. Thank you for that! Based on what I have read, and what I was told by a PA, it simply appears that what we are seeing is simply a result of KSR. I know that some here are making the assumption that we (TPL) initiated this second non-final rejection, and maybe I am wrong, but I can't make the connection. I have read all of the docs, and IMO (no offense) this assumption is a leap of faith. I simply believe that the examiner is just making sure that everything is vetted out regarding obviousness before he signs off on the patent. I would expect the same with the '336. If we make it through his process, than our patents will be on solid ground IMO.

Hope everyone had a great 4th! I have a neighbor who uses the home here in California as his summer beach home, and he always brings fireworks from Wisconsin. I have to tell you, the show he puts on, on our street, is better than the professional shows. It isn't legal of course....but it is a blast! Funny thing is he has these fireworks via US Postal from Wisconsin to his home here. 3 large boxes....with all that gun powder, you would think they boxes would get quarantined...LOL

Good luck to you, me, us, and all longs.