SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR
CONDITIONAL TIME NEAR AMBIENT
MONTIORING AND DETECTION OF LEAKS
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
DRAWINGS
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the element number 116 which is set forth in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the element numbers in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
TITLE
The title is objected to because of a grammatical error therein. The word “montioring” should be changed to --monitoring--.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The specification has been considered and approved.
CLAIMS
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 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,158,397 (parent application 18/751,025).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations set forth in the present claims is set forth and/or suggested in the patented claims as follows.
With respect to independent claim 1, patented claim 1 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 2, patented claim 1 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 3, patented claim 2 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 4, patented claim 3 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 5, patented claim 4 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 6, patented claim 5 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 7, patented claim 6 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 8, patented claim 7 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 9, patented claim 8 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 10, patented claim 9 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 11, patented claim 10 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 12, patented claim 11 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 13, patented claim 12 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 14, patented claim 13 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 15, patented claim 14 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 16, patented claim 15 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to independent claim 17, patented claim 16 sets forth the same subject matter.
With respect to claim 18, patented claim 17 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to claim 19, patented claim 18 sets forth the subject matter thereof.
With respect to independent claim 20, patented claim 19 sets forth the same subject matter.
The Examiner notes that in the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
After a search of the prior art, claims 1-20 have been found to be distinct over the prior art and thus would be allowable if the above double patenting rejection was overcome.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
