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 .
Response to Amendment
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 01/15/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 6 have been amended and claims 20-21 have been canceled. Now, claims 1-10 and 14-19 are pending.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,862,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations recited in claims 1-10 of the instant application are also recited in claims 1-22 of the ‘329 patent, which also recites additional limitations.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,741,278. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations recited in claims 1-10 of the instant application are also recited in claims 1-20 of the ‘278 patent, which also recites additional limitations.
Claims 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,862,329 in view of Rosenbloom, US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0046722.
Claims 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,741,278 in view of Rosenbloom, US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0046722.
Claims 14-19 differ from claims 1-22 of the ‘329 patent and 1-20 of the ‘278 patent due to the recitations of pathogen transmission factors including volume of traffic. However, these recitation are taught by Rosenbloom (see paragraph 0012; foot traffic pattern, flow of processed goods with the test points on the floorplan to determine contamination spread). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include recitations of such pathogen transmission factors with those recited in claims 1-22 of the ‘329 patent and 1-20 of the ‘278 patent with the motivation of further determining the impact of contamination spread within the facility (see paragraph 0012 of Rosenbloom).
Distinguishing Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 14-19 distinguish over the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject matter: the primary reason that claims 1-10 and 14-19 distinguish over the prior art is the combination of limitations of correlating pathogen sample information, identifying size of a pathogen colony associated with an environmental surface of a furst location of a facility, with pathogen transmission factors for transmission within the facility, executing discriminant analysis on the transmission factors to predict pathogen contamination at an environmental surface of a subsequent location in the facility. Displaying a graphical map of the facility, highlighting the graphical map of the facility with the first location (where the pathogen sample information was received) in a first color and the subsequent location of the predicted pathogen contamination at the environmental surface of the subsequent location with a second color indicative of pathogen contamination. The closest prior art (Rosenbloom, Almogy, and Wildman) teaches receiving pathogen sample information, correlating the sample information to transmission factors, predicting pathogen contamination at a subsequent location in a facility, and displaying a map of the facility that highlights locations of contamination and subsequent contamination. However, the prior art does not teach highlighting a graphical map display of a facility different colors of different surfaces at different locations according to pathogen contamination predicted pathogen contamination. Thomas, US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0219645, discloses a graphical map of a facility and highlighting different locations based on status of the locations in the facility. Thomas also describes the displayed location can be regarding contagion transmission within the facility. However, there is no description of graphically displaying different colors of different surfaces corresponding to pathogen sample and predicted pathogen location as recited in the combination of limitations.
Additionally, the combination of limitations directed to a control system that displays a graphical representation of a map of a facility on an output device and highlights on the graphical representation of the map the first location with a first color and the subsequent location having the predicted pathogen contamination and the predicted contamination at the environmental surface of the subsequent location with a second color indicative of pathogen contamination, provides a technical improvement to the graphical map display, integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Paragraphs 00074-00076 describe these technical improvements, providing instant visual recognition of locations that need attention within the facility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103 are moot in view of the withdrawal of these rejections, explained above.
Applicant’s comments regarding the double patenting rejections are acknowledged. These rejections have been maintained as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cohen, US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0258228, discloses using different colors to highlight pathogen areas on an environmental surface.
Yemington, US Patent No. 5,542,781, discloses a display map that shows contamination levels in different colors.
Chowell et al., Modeling rapidly disseminating infectious disease during mass gatherings, discloses modeling spread of infections diseases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683