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 .
Attempt for Communication
The expedite prosecution, on 01/28/2026, the examiner called the applicant’s representative Richard Burgujian (Reg. No. 31,744) and left voicemail message inviting the applicant to file a terminal disclaimer in order to overcome the pending double patenting rejections. No terminal disclaimer was filed by COB on 02/02/2026.
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 28-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations of claims 28-31 in the current Application are disclosed in respective claims 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,539, claims 32 and 37 are disclosed in claim 9, claims 33-36 are disclosed in claims 13-16, and claims 38-40 are disclosed in claims 17-19.
In addition, claim 28-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,750. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all claim limitations of claims 28-40 in the current Application are disclosed in respective claims 8-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,750.
"Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1326, 52, USPQ2d 1590, 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Second, the court determines whether the differences in the subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. Id. at 1327, 52 USPQ2d at 1595. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double patenting. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431,46 USPQ2d 1226, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier parent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the patent claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 255 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)." Eli Lilly and Company v Barr Laboratories, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, On petition for Rehearing en banc (decided: May 30, 2001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a power detector, comprising: a comparator circuit configured to receive a power supply signal from a first power supply and output a power management signal, a first switching element configured to connect the comparator circuit to or disconnect the comparator circuit from a second power supply according to a status signal, and a second switching element configured to connect the comparator circuit to or disconnect the comparator circuit from a power ground according to the status signal, wherein the power management signal is outputted according to the power supply signal and the status signal.
Claims 28-40 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN STOYNOV whose telephone number is 571-272-4236. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/STEFAN STOYNOV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175