Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 37 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 78 and 106 of copending Application No. 18/949347 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 21-100 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-95 of U.S. Patent No. 11,965,689. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claims 21-100 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-86 of U.S. Patent No. 11,852,396. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 113 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,692. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 88 of U.S. Patent No. 12,235,034. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 81 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,858. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,398,946. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite like elements merely suing different terminology and/or phraseology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tiecher US 6,102,162 (hereinafter Tiecher) in view of Brous US 5,345,379 (hereinafter Brous).
Re Claim 37. (New)
Tiecher discloses an enclosure access control system (Fig.2) for selectively unlocking an enclosure having an enclosure body (206) and at least one enclosure door (210) which define a product storage area for storing one or more products, the product storage area being accessible by consumers after the at least one enclosure door is unlocked and when the at least one enclosure door is open, the system comprising:
a locking element (225) on a first one of the enclosure body and the at least one enclosure door;
a locking mechanism (225) on a second one of the enclosure body and the at least one enclosure door,
the locking mechanism for at least one of locking the at least one enclosure door to the enclosure body and unlocking the at least one enclosure door to the enclosure body (col.9, lines 52-60);
a controller (Fig.12; 1212,1204) in communication with an electronic interface and the locking mechanism, the electronic interface adapted to selectively signal the controller to unlock the locking mechanism; the controller configured to receive an unlock signal from the electronic interface and to send the unlock signal to the locking mechanism, the unlock signal generated by the electronic interface remote to the enclosure in response to the electronic interface receiving a consumer authorization to make a purchase; the locking mechanism being configured in a locked condition during standby operation and being configured to selectively move to an unlocked condition upon receiving the unlock signal from the controller.
1212). Teicher does not teach there being a payment controller for detecting payment which in response, provides a control signal to communicate with a lock controller to unlock the enclosure door; wherein the payment controller and lock controller are operatively connected; and wherein the payment controller is also operatively connected to and is configured to communicate with a local or wide area network for controlling the lock mechanism; the payment controller comprising a first microcomputer, and the lock controller comprising a second microcomputer. Brous teaches there being a payment controller (Figure 2; 120 is a payment/authorization from payment control system) for detecting payment which in response, provides a control signal to communicate with a lock controller to unlock the enclosure door; wherein the payment controller and lock controller are operatively connected (Column 6; lines 43-61 discuss the control system 120 sending a signal to the internal control system of the washing/drying machine to initiate an action in the machine; which when applied to Teicher would mean the first authorization control system sending a signal to a secondary control system to unlock the lock); and wherein the payment controller is also operatively connected to and is configured to communicate with a local or wide area network for controlling the lock
mechanism (Abstract; communications network). It would have been obvious toone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the one controller of Teicher to be two separate controllers as in Brous in order to isolate issues, which would save money on replacement and repair operations, as well as to reduce the strain on the first controller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights