DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 22 May 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 - 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Prior Art Rejection of Claims 1 - 3 has been withdrawn.
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 – 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,366,497 in view of Raymond (US 2014/0115887), in further view of Tausch et al. (WO 90/10208).
Regarding Claim 1, the US Patent discloses a leak detection cable, in at least Claim 1, comprising:
a feedback wire having feedback conductors and feedback insulators surrounding said feedback conductors (Claim 1), said feedback insulators forming recessed cavities between said feedback insulators (Claim 1);
sensor wires disposed in said recessed cavities between said feedback insulators and separated by said feedback insulators (Claim 1), said sensor wires having a uniform resistance per unit of length (Claim 1);
a compressible conductive covering that at least partially surrounds said recessed cavities so that a gap is formed between said compressible conductive covering and said insulators (Claim 1);
a reactive polymer that expands in the presence of a solution (Claim 1), that at least partially surrounds said compressible conductive covering (Claim 1);
a non-expandable permeable cover that at least partially surrounds said reactive polymer that is permeable to said solution and directs forces from expansion of said reactive polymer, as a result of absorption of said aqueous solution, in an inward direction which causes said compressible conductive covering to move inwardly towards said sensor wires and eliminate said gap between said compressible conductive covering and said sensor wires which creates an electrical connection between said sensor wires and said compressible conductive covering and creates electrical conduction between said sensor wires and said compressible conductive covering where said reactive polymer expands (Claim 1).
The US Patent fails to expressly disclose the leak detection cable is an aqueous type, the feedback insulators joined together at an intersection to form recesses, said sensor wires recessed in said recessed cavities so that no portion of said sensor wires extends beyond said recessed cavities.
Raymond teaches, in at least Figure 2, feedback insulators (118, 120) joined together at an intersection to form recesses (Figure 2), and sensor wires (114, 116) recessed in said recessed cavities so that no portion of said sensor wires extends beyond said recessed cavities (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the US Patent so that the feedback insulators joined together at an intersection to form recesses, and said sensor wires recessed in said recessed cavities so that no portion of said sensor wires extends beyond said recessed cavities for the benefit of preventing false detections and protecting the sensor wires, as taught by Raymond [0015].
The US Patent discloses the reactive polymer expands in the presence of hydrocarbons (Claim 1), rather than an aqueous solution.
Tausch teaches leakage cables can be modified according to fluid intended to be located by using materials which swell in their presence e.g. silicone in the presence of hydrocarbons and cellulose in the presence of aqueous liquids (Page 4).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the US Patent by replacing the reactive polymer with one that expands in the presence of an aqueous solution e.g. cellulose thus resulting an aqueous solution leak detection cable for the benefit of detecting leakage of aqueous liquids, as taught by Tausch (Page 4).
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations are taught in Claim 1 of the US Patent.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations are taught in Claim 3 of the US Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim would be allowable for the same reasons regarding Claim 1 in parent application US 17/989,525.
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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights