Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the amendment filed on 12/01/25. The applicant argument regarding Double Patenting is not persuasive; therefore, all the rejections based on Double Patenting is retained and repeated for the following reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-38 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,338,113 (“the 113 patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter is nearly identical to the corresponding claims of the 113 patent.
As to claim 1, 11, and 21, claim 1 of the 113 patent teaches:
receiving, from a user device, a device profile associated with the user device (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 33-44);
determining, based on the device profile, at least one power consumption characteristic of the user device (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 33-44);
determining, based on the at least one power consumption characteristic of the user device, whether the user device is authorized to access a power source (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 33- 44);
and granting, based on determining that the user device is authorized to access the power source, the user device access to the power source (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 33-44).
As to claim 2, 12, and 22, claim 2 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the device profile indicates at least one of: a device identifier of the user device, a manufacturer of the user device, or a category of the user device (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 45-47).
As to claim 3, 13, and 23, claim 3 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the determining whether the user device is authorized to access the power source is further based on determining whether devices categorized in a category of the user device are authorized to access the power source (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 48-52).
As to claim 4, 14, and 24, claim 4 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the determining whether the user device is authorized to access the power source is further based on determining, based on the at least one power characteristic, whether a circuit of the power source would be overloaded if the user device is granted access to the power source (see Col 15 of the 113 patent, lines 53- 58.
As to claim 5, 15, and 25, claim 5 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the at least one power characteristic comprises at least one of a rated power consumption of the user device or a historical power consumption of the user device (see Col 16 of the 113 patent, lines 1-4).
As to claim 6, 16, and 26, claim 6 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the determining whether the user device is authorized to access the power source is further based on determining whether an expected power consumption of the user device exceeds a threshold power consumption (see Col 16 of the 113 patent, lines 5-9).
As to claim 7, 17, and 27, claim 7 of the 113 patent teaches: wherein the receiving the device profile is based on the user device being connected to a power outlet or a charger (see Col 16 of the 113 patent, lines 10-14).
Claims 1-38 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-42 of US Patent 10859613. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
As claims 1-38 the scope of the claimed limitation of the instant application is essentially the same as claimed limitations of claims 1-42 of US Patent 10859613.
Claims 1-38 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 9804210. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
As claims 1-38 the scope of the claimed limitation of the instant application is essentially the same as claimed limitations of claims 1-20 of US Patent 9804210.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH C TAT whose telephone number is 571 272-1908. The examiner can normally be reached on flex 7:00AM-7:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571 272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BINH C TAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights