7/3DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,671,190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,646,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,555,931. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/826,553 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/122,600 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/122,547 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 26 of copending Application No. 18/764,889 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/076,934 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/764,338 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the claims are not identical, the differences do not obviate the issue of double patenting. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the wire opening to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, in order to provide the desired conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 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 1-7,19-20, 22-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedeschi (US 9,331,427) in view of Coyne et al. (US 6,315,597).
Regarding claim 1, Tedeschi discloses an electrical wiring device comprising: a housing (20, 22) having an interior and at least one wire receiving opening that provides access from an exterior of the housing to the interior of the housing; at least one wire terminal assembly (30) positioned in the interior of the housing such that the at least one wire terminal assembly is accessible from the at least one wire receiving opening, the at least one wire terminal assembly includes a clamp brace (38, 36) and a clamping member (35) having a clamp opening (37) configured to receive at least a portion of the clamp brace, the clamping member being movable between a closed position (Fig. 7a) where the wire can be clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace and an open position (Fig. 6a) where the wire can be inserted through the at least one wire receiving opening, through the clamp opening between the clamping member and the clamp brace; and an actuator (40) mounted at least partially within at least one actuator opening in the housing such that the actuator remains at least partially within the housing and is movable therein, the actuator being configured to move the clamping member from the closed position to the open position.
Tedeschi is silent regarding the housing wire receiving opening being configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size. However, Coyne teaches an electrical wiring device having a housing (12) with a wire receiving opening (20) configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire in the receiving opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the housing device of Tedeschi to be configured to accommodate a 10 AWG wire as a predetermined selection as taught by Coyne.
Regarding claim 19, Tedeschi discloses an electrical wiring device comprising: a housing (20, 22) having an interior and at least one wire receiving opening, the wire receiving opening having a diameter; and at least one wire terminal (30) positioned in the interior of the housing such that the at least one wire terminal is accessible from the at least one wire receiving opening, the at least one wire terminal being configured to automatically be in a closed position where the wire can be clamped within the at least one wire terminal until moved to an open position that allows the wire to be inserted into or removed from the at least one wire terminal, the at least one wire terminal being moved to the open position by a linearly movable actuator (40) mounted within at least one actuator opening in the housing such that the actuator remains at least partially within the housing.
Tedeschi is silent regarding the housing wire receiving opening being configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size. However, Coyne discloses an electrical wiring device having a housing (12) with a wire receiving opening (20) configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire in the receiving opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the housing device of Tedeschi to be configured to accommodate a 10 AWG wire as a predetermined selection as taught by Coyne.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Tedeschi discloses the clamping member comprising a spring.
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Tedeschi discloses the clamping member moving in a first direction to the closed position and in a second direction to the open position.
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the second direction being opposite the movement of the clamping member in the first direction.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the first direction and the second direction being substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire.
Regarding claim 6, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the first direction and the second direction being substantially linear.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Tedeschi discloses that the wire can be clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace with a force that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire so that the clamping member presses the wire against the clamp brace (Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 20, Tedeschi, as modified by Coyne, discloses the at least one wire terminal includes a clamp brace (32) and a clamping member (38) that is movable between the closed position where the wire that is 10 AWG wire can be clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace and the open position where the wire that is 10 AWG wire can be inserted through the at least one wire receiving opening and between the clamping member and the clamp brace.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedeschi in view of Coyne and Kozel et al. (US 5,494,456).
Regarding claim 10, Tedeschi discloses an electrical wiring device comprising: a housing (20, 22) having an interior and a wire receiving opening, the wire receiving opening provides access from an exterior of the housing to the interior of the housing, the wire receiving opening being configured to receive a wire and a wire terminal assembly (30) positioned in the interior of the housing such that the wire terminal assembly is accessible from the wire receiving opening, the wire terminal assembly includes a clamp brace (38) and a clamping member (32, 36) having a clamp opening (37) configured to receive at least a portion of the clamp brace, the clamping member being movable between a closed position where the wire can be clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace and an open position where the wire can be inserted through the one of the plurality of wire receiving openings through the clamp opening between the clamping member and the clamp brace; and an actuator (40) mounted (i.e. placed) at least partially within at least one actuator opening in the housing (Fig. 4) such that the actuator remains at least partially within the housing and is movable therein, the actuator being configured to move the clamping member from the closed position to the open position.
Tedeschi is silent regarding the housing wire receiving opening being configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire or larger in size, a plurality of wire receiving openings, and a plurality of wire terminal assemblies. However, Coyne teaches an electrical wiring device having a housing (12) with a wire receiving opening (20) configured to receive a wire gauge 10 AWG wire in the receiving opening.
Kozel discloses an electrical wiring device having a housing with plurality of wire receiving openings (20), and a plurality of wire terminal assemblies (34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the housing of the wiring device of Tedeschi to be configured to accommodate a 10 AWG wire as a predetermined selection size as taught by Coyne and also obvious to modify the housing of the wiring device of Tedeschi to have the housing with plurality of wire receiving openings and a plurality of wire terminal assemblies to accommodate multiple wires and wire assemblies as taught by Kozel.
Regarding claim 11, Tedeschi discloses the clamping member comprising a spring (35).
Regarding claim 12, Tedeschi discloses the clamping member moving in a first direction to the closed position and in a second direction to the open position.
Regarding claim 13, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the second direction being opposite the movement of the clamping member in the first direction.
Regarding claim 14, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the first direction and the second direction being substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire.
Regarding claim 15, Tedeschi discloses the movement of the clamping member in the first direction and the second direction being substantially linear.
Regarding claim 16, Tedeschi discloses that the wire can be clamped between the clamping member and the clamp brace with a force that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the wire so that the clamping member presses the wire against the clamp brace.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
