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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to After Final reply filed on 9/29/2025 and the RCE filed on 2/17/2026. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-2 have been amended and claims 4-5 have been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 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. Additionally, claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but instead use 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, are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim limitation(s) being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is/are:
“a transportable device side control means that controls...” in claim 1.
“an abnormality notifier that notifies...” in claim 1.
“a management device side control means that controls...” in claim 1.
“an abnormality annunciator that announces...” in claim 1.
“an image capturing means that captures...” in claim 1.
“a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains...” in claim 1.
“a behavior pattern determiner that compares...” in claim 1.
“a locking device determiner that determines...” in claim 2.
“a customer service means that serves...” in claim 3.
“a customer service executor that executes...” in claim 3.
“a reservation manager that manages...” in claim 6.
“a command generator that generates...” in claim 6.
“a command transmitter that transmits...” in claim 6.
“a command receiver that receives...” in claim 6.
“a command executor that executes...” in claim 6.
“an input receiving means that receives...” in claim 9.
“an application transmitter that transmits...” in claim 9.
“an application receiver that receives...” in claim 9.
“a presence detection means that detects...” in claim 10.
“a presence notifier that notifies...” in claim 10.
“a presence manager that manages...” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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.
Corresponding structure for this/these claim limitation(s) is/are found in specification, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0042]-[0046].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0227078; hereinafter “Tokuchi”) in view of Brophy (U.S. Patent No. 11,145,016) and Kameta (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0193538), and further in view of Cobb et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0064267; hereinafter “Cobb”).
As per claim 1, Tokuchi teaches an unmanned preview system (Figs. 1, 2: system 1) comprising:
a discloses a booth controller 50 configured to control and monitor a reserved area); and
a management device that is connected to the discloses a reservation management system 20 connected to the booth controller via a communication network), wherein
the discloses wherein the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management server upon the occurrence of an abnormality),
the management device comprises a management device side control means that controls the management device, and the management device side control means comprises an abnormality annunciator that announces the abnormality to an administrator when the management device side control means is notified of by the abnormality notifier (e.g. para. [0029], [0033], [0035]-[0037] & [0043]: discloses wherein the reservation management server is configured to notify a service provider upon the occurrence of an abnormality).
Tokuchi does not explicitly teach the detects an abnormality having occurred inside the building and notifies the management device of the detected abnormality via the communication line upon detecting the abnormality having occurred inside the building.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brophy teaches: the monitor control unit 110) comprises an abnormality notifier that detects an abnormality having occurred inside the building and notifies the management device (Fig. 1: rental property management server 130) of the detected abnormality via the communication line upon detecting the abnormality having occurred inside the building (see e.g., col. 21, lines 48-61: “The rental property management server 130 is an electronic device configured to provide monitoring services by exchanging electronic communications with the monitor control unit 110 and the user device 140 over a network. For example, the rental property management server 130 may be configured to monitor events (e.g., alarm events) generated by the monitor control unit 110. In this example, the rental property management server 130 may exchange electronic communications with the network module included in the monitor control unit 110 to receive information regarding events (e.g., alarm events) detected by the monitor control unit 110.”; col. 30, lines 41-53: “The flagged events 510 may highlight events of the events during the prospective tenant's visit 508. For example, events determined to be abnormal may be displayed in a visually different way. Events may be determined to be abnormal if they are events the owner or property manager does not wish to happen. For example, an item being removed from the refrigerator may be an abnormal event that is flagged. Events may be automatically determined to be abnormal by the system 100. For example, if an event such as a television on event has never occurred within the property 101 or any of the properties managed by an owner or property manager, the system 100 may determine the television on event to be abnormal and flag the event.”; col. 31, lines 10-16: “In some examples, the interface 500 may provide an alert to a remote user in real time. Alerts may be provided for flagged or abnormal events 510.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tokuchi to incorporate the teachings of Brophy to provide the abnormality notifier that detects an abnormality having occurred inside the building and notifies the management device of the detected abnormality. Doing so allows the device side/monitor control unit to detect alarm events, which include abnormalities, and provide the detected information to the owner or property manager in real time, as recognized by Brophy (col. 31, lines 10-16).
Tokuchi in view of Brophy does not explicitly teach that the device is transportable and has portability.
However, Brophy does describe an interactive device (an electronic device associated with a property owner/occupant) within the property that may collect and transmit data to the server 130 (see e.g., col. 22, line 30 to col. 23, line 21).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Kameta teaches: an unmanned preview system comprising a transportable device that is configured to be placeable inside a building and has portability (e.g. Fig. 1; para. [0066], [0070] & [0153]: discloses camera robots 61 and 62 with a flying or walking means configured to monitor inside of real estate properties 3 (31 and 32)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tokuchi in view of Brophy to incorporate the teachings of Kameta to provide a transportable device that has portability. Doing so enhances surveillance and reduces cost, as the transportable device can cover more ground, monitor various areas of the building, and diminish the need for multiple stationary cameras, as recognized by Kameta (para. [0070]).
Tokuchi in view of Brophy and Kameta further teaches wherein the transportable device further comprises an image capturing means that captures images of the inside of the building (see Tokuchi. e.g., para. [0029], [0037] & [0043]: discloses a surveillance camera configured to capture an image of the reserved area; and Brophy, e.g., col. 18, lines 4-16: “For example, video data from the cameras 126 may be used with facial recognition to determine the identity of a visitor or prospective tenant. In some examples motion sensor data from the sensors 122 may be used to track visitors' and/or prospective tenants' movements in or around the property 101”).
While Tokuchi teaches the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management system upon the occurrence of an abnormality (see para. [0029], [0033], [0035]-[0037] & [0043]) and Brophy teaches examples of abnormal events (col. 30, lines 41-53), these are not specifically “behavior patterns”, therefore, the combination does not teach:
a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for previewing the building;
a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a previewer of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means; and
a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference.
However, in the same field of video surveillance system, Cobb teaches:
a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern for previewing the building (e.g., para. [0030]: “Additionally, multiple applications may interact with one another, e.g., a user-application program may interact with another application such as a database to provide an intended service or function. Also, such programs typically include variables and data structures that may reside in memory or on storage devices”; para. [0071]: “That is, as new behaviors emerge in the scene, new clusters will emerge in the ART network 625. Further, over time, as the new clusters mature, the cluster layer 600 may treat input data mapping to such clusters as being representative of an observation of normal behavior”; para. [0005]: “Some such systems may also classify a blob as being a particular agent (e.g., a person or a vehicle) as well as determine when an object has engaged in certain predefined behaviors.”);
a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains a captured behavior pattern of a previewer of the building on the basis of the images captured by the image capturing means (e.g., para. [0049]: “In one embodiment, the primitive event detector 212 may be configured to receive the output of the computer vision engine 135 (i.e., the video images, context event stream) and generate a sequence of primitive events—labeling the observed actions or behaviors in the video with semantic meaning.”); and
a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the captured behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference (para. [0071]: “Further, over time, as the new clusters mature, the cluster layer 600 may treat input data mapping to such clusters as being representative of an observation of normal behavior. Thus, when input data (e.g., a kinematic data vectors) maps to a cluster in ART network 625 that has not matured—it may represent a new emergent behavior or the observation of an anomalous event (at that layer of the cortex model component 240). Accordingly, in one embodiment, the ART network 625 may issue an alert to users of the video surveillance system when such an event occurs.”), and
detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference (e.g., para. [0051]: “More simply, as clusters and sequences modeling a given environment emerge in the clustering/sequencing layers 245 (i.e., clusters and sequences modeling the behavior of foreground objects in a scene captured in a sequence of video frames), the behavioral anomaly detector 225 may be configured to generate and issue alerts when input data received from the computer vision engine differs from prior observation. In one embodiment, probabilities of observing a given sequence or input data mapping to a given cluster may be stored by the cluster statistics 230.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Tokuchi in view of Brophy and Kameta to further incorporate Cobb’s video surveillance system, particularly, the method in which anomalous behaviors are detected. Doing so would provide the benefit of recognizing unusual or unexpected behaviors, work in a wide variety of real-life situations, and adapt to a changing environment, as recognized by Cobb (para. [0006]).
As per claim 2, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, and Cobb teach the unmanned preview system of claim 1 stated above where Tokuchi further teaches: wherein the transportable device is connected to a locking device of the building via a communication line (e.g. para. [0026], [0029], [0033], [0035]-[0037] & [0043]: discloses the booth controller 50 configured to control and monitor a reserved area, including a door locking device).
Although, Tokuchi teaches a locking device configured to lock and unlock the reservation area door (para. [0029] & [0040]-[0041]), the reference does not explicitly state determining whether the locking device has been normally unlocked.
However, Brophy teaches: the transportable device side control means comprises a locking device determiner that determines whether the locking device has been normally unlocked (see e.g., col. 5, lines 3-11: “The electronic lock 128 may include a user input device that receives user input of a passcode and a mechanical lock that unlocks and locks a physical door of an entrance to the property 101. The electronic lock 128 also may include a communication module that performs two-way communication over a wired or short-range wireless communication protocol and a processor that controls the lock to allow access to the property based on entry of a proper passcode through the user input device.”; col. 5, lines 25-30: “The monitoring system 110 may serve as an intermediary between the server 130 and the lock 128 to enable the server 130 to remotely program and manage the lock 128 and also to receive reports when events (e.g., entry of a correct passcode, entry of an incorrect passcode, entry of a check-in or checkout code, etc.) occur at the lock 128.”), and
detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the locking device determiner has determined that the locking device has not been normally unlocked (e.g. col. 3, lines 29-39: “In general, the system 100 can be configured to respond to an electronic lock action by an individual 102 based on monitoring an detectable region 128a of the property 101 and determining an appropriate action to be performed in response based on one or more actions specified by a lock action repository 132. The lock action repository 132 may include actions available in response to inputs to the electronic lock 128. For example, in response to the electronic lock 128 detecting an input of an incorrect access code, the lock action repository 132 may transmit a control signal to the monitor control unit 110 to active an alarm.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tokuchi to further incorporate the teachings of Brophy to provide a locking device determiner that determines whether the locking device has been normally unlocked. Doing so enables unlocking and locking of a door according to events such as entry of a correct passcode (normally unlocked), and entry of an incorrect passcode, respectively, as recognized by Brophy (col. 5, lines 25-30).
As per claim 3, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, and Cobb teach the unmanned preview system of claim 2 stated above where the combination further teaches: wherein the transportable device comprises a customer service means that serves a previewer of the building (see Kameta, e.g., para. [0072] & [0108]: discloses a communication service provider side device 7 connected to the camera robots 61 and 62 over the communication network 2 to control a communication service provided by the use of the camera robots 61 and 62),
and the transportable device side control means comprises a customer service executor that executes customer service by the customer service means when the locking device determiner determines that the locking device is normally unlocked (see Brophy, e.g., col. 13, lines 32-51: “A user may then input their unique access code to the electronic lock 128 to gain access to the property 101. The electronic lock 128 may transmit data indicating that it has received an input. The server 130 may receive the access code data to record when a particular user has arrived at the property 101. In some examples, the server 130 may perform an action based on the access code data. For example, the server 130 may determine that a user, John, has entered his access code, and has entered the property 101. The server 130 may operate a speaker system located on the property 101 to greet John (e.g., saying “Welcome to your new home, John! Feel free to look around!”). In some examples, multiple prospective tenants may be inside the property 101, and the server 130 may provide a personalized greeting for each visitor. In some examples, the server 130 may notify the owner or property manager of the property 101 that a particular visitor has arrived. The owner or property manager may then greet the visitor personally (e.g., through a speaker system, through a phone call, through an interactive device within the property 101)”; and Kameta, e.g., para. [0087], [0108], [0111]; discloses the communication service provider side device 7 and the real estate manager side device 8 are permitted to connect to the camera robot 61 on the basis of an authentication result of a device side authentication unit 402b and authorization operation performed by the tenant; and a service execution unit 706 which can be connected to the camera robots 61 and 62 of a plurality of tenants for performing a face-to-face communication service through the camera robots 61 and 62 by connecting the tenant side devices of the tenants with each other in accordance with the authentication result by the authentication unit of each tenant and the authorization operation of the each tenant).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, and Cobb, and further in view of Tokuchi ‘315 (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130315).
As per claim 6, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, and Cobb teach the unmanned preview system of claim 1 stated above. Although, Tokuchi teaches a reservation management system connected to a booth controller via a communication network (Tokuchi, e.g., para. [0029], [0033], [0035]-[0037], [0043], [0077] & [0082]), the reference does not explicitly state receiving commands from the management system and executing the receive commands.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tokuchi ‘315 teaches: wherein the management device side control means comprises: a reservation manager that manages reservation information including preview start time and preview end time set by reservation (e.g. para. [0039]-[0041], [0076]-[0077], [0159]-0162] & [0183]-[0185]: discloses a reservation management system comprising a CPU configured to receive, manage, and store reservation details, such as start and end times);
a command generator that generates a command to the transportable device on the basis of the reservation information; and a command transmitter that transmits the command to the transportable device via the communication line (e.g. para. [0039]-[0041], [0063], [0076]-[0077], [0085], [0090], [0109], [0159]-0162] & [0183]-[0185]: discloses wherein the reservation management system comprises a CPU and a communication interface configured to generate and communicate instructions to a control unit of the reserved space), and
the transportable device side control means comprises: a command receiver that receives the command from the command transmitter; and a command executor that executes a predetermined operation on the basis of the command received by the command receiver (e.g. para. [0060]-[0064], [0081]-[0099] & [0103]-[0108]: discloses wherein the control unit of the reserved space is configured to receive and execute instructions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, and Cobb to further incorporate the teachings of Tokuchi ‘315 to provide the instruction execution. Doing so enables to “collect information from the devices connected to the LAN and that controls the operation of the devices”, as recognized by Tokuchi ‘315 (para. [0085]).
As per claim 7, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, Cobb, and Tokuchi ‘315 teach the unmanned preview system of claim 6 stated above where Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches: wherein the command generator generates an announcement command to announce the preview end time on the basis of the reservation information, and the command executor announces the preview end time to a previewer on the basis of the announcement command (see Tokuchi ‘315, e.g. para. [0060]-[0064], [0081]-[0099], [0103]-[0108], [0111], [0154] & [0183]: discloses the control unit controls a speaker and a display configured to notify the user of the reservation end time).
As per claim 8, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, Cobb, and Tokuchi ‘315 teach the unmanned preview system of claim 6 stated above where Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches: wherein the reservation manager manages the reservation information including a reservation status after the preview end time, the command generator generates an extension command to announce whether a preview time can be extended according to the reservation status on the basis of the reservation information, and the command executor announces to a previewer whether the preview time can be extended on the basis of the extension command (Tokuchi ‘315, e.g. para. [0060]-[0064], [0081]-[0099], [0103]-[0108], [0111], [0115], [0150]-[0168] & [0183]: discloses determining whether the current reservation can be extended based on the stored upcoming reservation information and notifying the user that the current reservation end time can be extended).
As per claim 9, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, Cobb, and Tokuchi ‘315 teach the unmanned preview system of claim 8 stated above where Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches: wherein the transportable device comprises an input receiving means that receives input of an application for extension by a previewer, the transportable device side control means comprises an application transmitter that transmits the application for extension to the management device via the communication line when the input of the application for extension is received by the input receiving means, the management device side control means comprises an application receiver that receives the application for extension transmitted from the application transmitter, and the reservation manager changes the preview end time and updates the reservation information on the basis of the application for extension received by the application receiver (see Tokuchi ‘315, e.g. para. [0060]-[0064], [0081]-[0099], [0103]-[0108], [0111], [0115], [0150]-[0168] & [0183]: discloses receiving, via an input device, a request to extend a current reservation, updating a reservation end time, and notifying the user of the new reservation end time).
As per claim 10, Tokuchi in view of Brophy, Kameta, Cobb, and Tokuchi ‘315 teach the unmanned preview system of claim 6 stated above where Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches: wherein the transportable device comprises a presence detection means that detects presence of a previewer inside the building, the transportable device side control means comprises a presence notifier that notifies the management device of the presence of the previewer via the communication line when the presence detection means detects the presence of the previewer, the management device side control means comprises a presence manager that manages presence information of the previewer notified by the presence notifier, the command generator generates a warning command to announce a warning to the previewer when the previewer is present even after the preview end time on the basis of the reservation information and the presence information, and the command executor announces to the previewer that the preview end time has passed on the basis of the warning command (see Tokuchi ‘315, e.g. para. [0060]-[0064], [0081]-[0099], [0103]-[0108], [0111], [0115], [0150]-[0168] & [0183]: discloses a plurality of devices configured to detect and notify the system of the presence of a user, wherein upon detection of a user, the control unit of the reserved space may notify the user of the reservation end time).
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 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). 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); and 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 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). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-10 of copending Application No. 18/301,229 and claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/301,230. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not exact word-for-word copies, they are extremely similar and recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov