DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/3/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 13, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12069555.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 14-19 of the present application are a broader version of claims 12, 13, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12069555. The difference being in U.S. Patent No. 12069555, claims are similar to present application but further state additional limitations such as first and second network equipment, geographic region, movable base station associated with responder communication network, second result, and sensor associated with movable base station.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11647374.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5-10, and 12-20 of the present application are a broader version of claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11647374. The difference being in U.S. Patent No. 11647374, claims are similar to present application but further state additional limitations such as first and second network equipment, enable portable base station, operational parameter, and associated sensors. Claims 2-4 and 11 are objected to for depending on rejected claims above.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from the above claims of the present application made these claims broader versions. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claims 14-18 of the present application are not patentably distinct from claims 12, 13, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12069555 and claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 13 of the present application are not patentably distinct from claims 1-4, 5, 7, 8, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11647374.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following patents/patent application publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to portable base stations: U.S. Pat. Application Pub. No. 2017/0301220 to Jarrell et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAIL KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7187. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8:30am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 5712727915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Suhail Khan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights