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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 6 recite the limitation "the gas sensors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 4 lacks an appropriate antecedent basis, then claims 5-7, which depend from claim 4, lack antecedent basis as well.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/906,274 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application merely discloses two of the same modules compared to the present application disclosing just the one. The second module merely broadens the scope of the claim without adding any inventive concept. A duplicate module would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art being as the module alone is functional, so simply duplicating the module isn’t adding anything inventive as each module stands alone and the duplicate modules are not disclosed as working together in some inventive way.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furusaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0227045; hereinafter referred to as Furusaki.)
With respect to claim 1, Furusaki discloses and illustrates a gas detector for detecting gas, the gas detector comprising: a main body (12) including a main body-side inflow channel (12a) through which the gas flows in and a main body-side outflow channel (12b) through which the gas flows out; a chamber (C2) that is separably disposed on the main body (see Figure 1) and includes a chamber-side inflow channel (22a) detachably connected to the main body-side inflow channel, a chamber-side outflow channel (22b) detachably connected to the main body-side outflow channel, and an internal space (C1) interposed between the chamber-side inflow channel and the chamber-side outflow channel; a gas sensor (20) that is separably disposed on the chamber (see Figure 1) and includes a gas detection unit (24) to be in contact with the gas passing through the internal space (see Figure 1); and a sensor base (50) that is separably disposed on the gas sensor and the main body, and that includes a sensor receptacle connector (24c) detachably connected to a sensor-side connector of the gas sensor and a main body receptacle connector (50p) detachably connected to a main body-side connector of the main body to thereby electrically connect the gas sensor and the main body.
With respect to claim 2, the gas detector according to claim 1, wherein: the chamber includes a sensor insertion port (50r) into which the gas sensor is inserted; the gas sensor includes an annular sensor-side sealing surface (S1) capable of abutting against the sensor insertion port; and the internal space is enclosed by the sensor insertion port and the sensor-side sealing surface abutting against each other (see at least Figures 1 and 2).
With respect to claim 3, the gas detector according to claim 1, wherein: the chamber includes a chamber-side engagement portion (23; see at least Figures 1 and 2); the sensor base includes a base-side engagement portion to be engaged with the chamber-side engagement portion (see Figure 2, where 23 is in contact with 50); the chamber is fixed to the sensor base by engaging the chamber-side engagement portion and the base-side engagement portion with each other (see at least Figures 1 and 2); and the chamber is made movable relative to the sensor base by disengaging the chamber-side engagement portion and the base-side engagement portion (see at least Figures 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights