CTNF 18/710,970 CTNF 79570 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12031844 to Taguchi et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,031,844 claims the same basic invention as presently claimed, namely, a tilt/inclination sensor including a notification unit, a water storage tank/chamber containing an electrolytic solution, and a battery/cell including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator, wherein tilting causes the electrolytic solution to contact the separator so that the battery/cell generates power to drive the notification unit, as well as a corresponding detection system using such sensor(s). The presently claimed subject matter differs only in terminology and in obvious modifications that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 1 because the recited tilt sensor / water storage chamber / unit cell / provide notification about occurrence of tilt are obvious variants of the patented inclination sensor / water storage tank / primary battery / notify occurrence of inclination . Instant claim 2 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 2 because both recite a plurality of cells/batteries connected in series. Instant claim 3 merely adds an obvious removable seal valve to prevent premature electrolyte supply before installation, which is an obvious deployment/storage modification of the patented tilt-activated battery sensor. Instant claim 4 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 5 , and instant claim 5 is not patentably distinct from patent claim 6 , because they recite the same negative-electrode and separator limitations, respectively. Instant claim 6 is not patentably distinct from at least patent claim 7 because determining alarm importance based on a difference between a current position and an installed position is an obvious use of the location information already used in the patented detection system. Instant claim 7 is not patentably distinct from at least patent claim 7 because using the number of notifying sensors as a severity metric is an obvious use of the sensor-count information already output in the patented system. Instant claim 8 is not patentably distinct from at least patent claims 7-8 because using precipitation as an additional factor in evaluating alarm importance is an obvious variation of the same server-side event assessment. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 appear to be allowable, but are not in condition for allowance due to the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth above. 13-03-01 The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 1, electrolytic tilt sensors are known in the art. See for example, US PGPUB 20030110652 to Greway, USPN 5630280 to Crossan, 5852878 to Seipp Jr. et al., 5937528 to Shijo et al., 6249984 to Barsky et al., and 7886451 to Ruether et al. Furthermore, passive “reserve” batteries to trigger a notification unit are known in the art. See for example, US PGPUB 20230006285 to Takahashi. And the closest prior art, USPN 6282804 to Jiang, teaches a tilt sensor with a similar reserve battery structure, but does not disclose or motivate when a water storage tank is inclined with the inclination of the structure, an electrolytic solution is injected into a separator, and the primary battery starts power generation. Therefore, the Examiner agrees with the corresponding international search report in that the prior art fails to motivate or disclose an inclination sensor comprising a water storage tank configured to contain an electrolytic solution wherein, when the water storage tank is inclined with the inclination of the structure, the electrolytic solution is injected into the separator, and the primary battery starts power generation and supplies power necessary for driving the notification unit, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm. 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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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. /PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/710,970 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights