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 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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1, 8, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,643,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 8, 15
of U.S. Patent 10,643,457 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to
eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and
its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before
involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,872. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they
are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 15
of U.S. Patent 12,118,872 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to
eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and
its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before
involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant needs to provide a terminal disclaimer, the Applicant’s amendment is not sufficient to overcome the double patenting rejection.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of the claims is sustained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Nokhoudian et al. (US 2015/0358794) discloses community system.
Shinar et al. (US 2016/0058429) discloses pregnancy state monitoring.
Fukushima et al. (US5,579,370) discloses
Pfeffer (US 2009/0284348) discloses incident system.
Billeter (US 2021/0027229) discloses event method thereof.
Kenton et al. (US 2010/0325107) discloses systems conversations.
Baughman et al. (US 2017/0091617) discloses incident data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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,
Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
May 20, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights