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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 15, and 17-18 are amended.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No.12/135,235 to Brower.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in claims 1-20 of the instant application, applicant’s claims, a data processing system operable for using information generated by at least one sensor connected to a pipeline to detect breach or attempted breach through the pipeline, the data processing unit comprising:
at least one data processing device;
a sensor interface coupled to the at least one data processing device, wherein the sensor interface enables said sensor information to be received by the at least one data processing device communicated;
non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one data processing device, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises instructions accessible therefrom and executable by the at least one data processing device for enabling the at least one data processing device to perform operations to detect breach or attempted breach through the pipeline, wherein said operations include:
receiving a signal conveying pipeline operation characterizing information generated by at least one of the sensor;
correlating the pipeline operation characterizing information signal to at least one anomalistic reference signal characterizing at least one activity indicative of breach or attempted breach through the pipeline; and
causing a signal conveying information derived from said correlating of the pipeline operation characterizing information signal to at least one anomalistic reference signal to be transmitted.
Brower discloses in claim 14 a pipeline system, comprising:
a pipeline having a flow passage therein through which fluid material flows;
a plurality of sensors mounted on an exterior surface of the pipeline; and
a data processing unit coupled to each of the sensors for enabling reception of signals therefrom, wherein the data processing unit is adapted to receive a signal corresponding to pipeline operation characterizing information generated by at least one of the sensors, to correlate the pipeline operation characterizing information signal to at least one anomalistic reference signal characterizing at least one activity indicative of theft of a substance flowing through the pipeline; and to cause a signal conveying information derived from correlation of the pipeline operation characterizing information signal to the at least one anomalistic reference signal to be transmitted. Additional limitations of the instant applications claim 1 can be found in claims 15-20 of Brower.
Although the scope of claims 1-20 of the instant application and claims 14-20 of the Brower patent are very similar, the difference between the present claimed invention and Brower patent is that the instant application recites the same element and limitations with a more generality in scope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to use the Brower patent as a general teaching to arrive at the instant application because the same elements are used to arrive at the same invention.
Limitations of dependent claim 2 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 3 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 4 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 5 of the instant application can be found in claims 18 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 6 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 7 of the instant application can be found in claims 18 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 8 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 and 19 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 9 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 10 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 11 of the instant application can be found in claims 14-20 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 12 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 and 19 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 13 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 and 19 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 14 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 15 of the instant application can be found in claims 18 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 16 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 17 of the instant application can be found in claims 18 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 18 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 and 19 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 19 of the instant application can be found in claims 15-16 and 19 of Brower.
Limitations of dependent claim 20 of the instant application can be found in claims 17 of Brower.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action or by timely filing a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights