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 .
Detailed Action
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 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,098 (098). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application while there are differences between this claim and claim 1 of 098 the differences are trivial. The applicant has claimed in the instant application that there are multiple fibers disposed throughout the head, neck, leg, and arm of the ATD while in 098 it is merely stated disposing at least one optical fiber throughout a plurality of body parts. As examiner stated this is a trivial difference and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these limitations are obvious variants of each other
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify 098 with multiple fibers disposed throughout the head, neck, leg, and arm of the ATD because distributing the fibers through these areas provides an accurate picture of what the forces applied to the body are and how it affects the body.
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 1 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application there are no analogous claims in 098 however, the limitation, “the step of disposing an additional optical fiber in an interior component of the testing stand” would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify 098 with the step of disposing an additional optical fiber in an interior component of the testing stand because putting the fiber inside the stand protects it from collision damage and allows one to track the motion of the stand as a well.
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant application the only difference between this claim and Claim 2 of 098 is that the instant application names the body parts. This is a trivial difference in scope and the broader scope of 098 reads on this claim.
Regarding Claim 4 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 4 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claim 5 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 6 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claim 6 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 7 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claim 7 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 9 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claims 8 & 10 of the instant application there are no analogous claims in 098 however, the limitations, “wherein the step of disposing the plurality of optical fibers is further defined as disposing the plurality of optical fibers in an optical fiber vest that is removable from the anthropomorphic test device,” and “wherein the step of disposing the at least one ATD optical fiber throughout the plurality of body parts is further defined as disposing the at least one ATD optical fiber in an optical fiber vest that is removable from the anthropomorphic test device” would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify 098 with wherein the step of disposing the plurality of optical fibers is further defined as disposing the plurality of optical fibers in an optical fiber vest that is removable from the anthropomorphic test device and wherein the step of disposing the at least one ATD optical fiber throughout the plurality of body parts is further defined as disposing the at least one ATD optical fiber in an optical fiber vest that is removable from the anthropomorphic test device because such an arrangement would allow for easy removal and storage between tests or when the dummy needs to be changed out due to damage.
Regarding Claim 11 of the instant application, it is met by Claim 2 of 098. There are no significant differences in scope between the two claims with just some minor wording differences.
Regarding Claim 12 the applicant has claimed in the instant application that there are multiple fibers disposed throughout the head, neck, leg, and arm of the ATD while in 098 it is merely stated disposing at least one optical fiber throughout a plurality of body parts. As examiner stated this is a trivial difference and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these limitations are obvious variants of each other
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify 098 with multiple fibers disposed throughout the head, neck, leg, and arm of the ATD because distributing the fibers through these areas provides an accurate picture of what the forces applied to the body are and how it affects the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable over the art but have a pending Double patenting rejection. Overcoming the issue of the double patenting would put these claims in condition for allowance.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 1 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious continuing to reposition and reorient the head and neck assembly, the arm assembly, and the leg assembly until the second reflection correlates with the initial reflection such that the position and orientation of the anthropomorphic test device corresponds to the initial position and orientation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-8 allowable based upon their dependency.
As to Claim 9 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious continuing to reposition and reorient the anthropomorphic test device until the second reflection correlates with the initial reflection such that the current position and orientation of the anthropomorphic test device corresponds to the initial position and orientation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 10-12 allowable based upon their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PAT 9, 355, 575 teaches an ATD with a fiber for measuring the movement of at least one body part but does not teach the allowable subject matter.
US PAT 8,970,845 teaches a fiber with multiple cores
PGPub 2017/0354353 teaches a motion capture sensor using a Fiber Bragg grating sensor embedded in a “vest”
PGPub 2013/0327164 Teaches a crash test dummy with a sensor band around its waist that utilizes optical fibers to monitor the dummy.
PGPub 2020/0348193 shows multiple fibers (fig. 1) extending through multiple areas of the dummy. Also discloses using Fiber Bragg sensors. Does not show the allowable subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 December 31, 2025
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877