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 .
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,258.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application and/or claims of the issued patent merely broaden the scope of the claims of the issued patent and/or claims of the instant application. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before (See MPEP §804.II.B.1 and §2144.04 IIA).
Claims 1, 10, 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,735,030.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application and/or claims of the issued patent merely broaden the scope of the claims of the issued patent and/or claims of the instant application. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before (See MPEP §804.II.B.1 and §2144.04 IIA).
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,875.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application and/or claims of the issued patent merely broaden the scope of the claims of the issued patent and/or claims of the instant application. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before (See MPEP §804.II.B.1 and §2144.04 IIA).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Soloway et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0090327 teaches alarm system armed and disarmed by a door contact.
2. Chen US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0019911 teaches pool guard alarm apparatus.
3. Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0249012 teaches method and device for adjusting frame rate of video recording.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
September 5, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights