Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment IV, Figures 14-15 directed to claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The invention is directed to a WIFI enabled power strip, which is not captured by the present title.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that no IDS is present in the instant application, which would be expected given the lengthy continuation data.
Double Patenting
Regarding Claim 10 (which would be overcome if made dependent on Claim 9):
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 3 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,197,263. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 10 could be made dependent on Claim 9 to avoid this Statutory Double Patenting rejection. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claims 1-9
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The following claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,263. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-9 are to be found in patent claims 1-7 (as the application claim 1-9 are fully encompasses patent claims 1-7). The difference between the application claim 1-9 and the patent claims 1-7 lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims.
It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the application claims is anticipated by the claims of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. US 2009/0125743 in view of Gordon .
Robertson teaches:
1. An apparatus for wireless local area network (LAN) ([0105]) control of electrical power to an electrically-powered device, the apparatus comprising:
a housing (see Embodiments ie. FIG1, FIG5);
at least one alternating current outlet socket for receiving a plug from an electrically- powered device, (see sockets FIG1);
an alternating current input plug for connection to an outlet to receive power (9, FIG1);
an electro-mechanical relay (relay of 1d, FIG3, [0061-0062]) for controlling power to the at least one alternating current outlet socket, the relay electrically positioned between the alternating current input plug and the at least one alternating current outlet socket (as shown in FIG3);
a processor (1a, FIG3) positioned within the housing and in communication with the relay, the processor configured to instruct the electro-mechniocal_relay to enable electrical power to the at least one alternating current outlet socket and to disable electrical power to the at least one alternating current outlet socket;
a transceiver ([0033]), utilizing a wireless communication protocol (wifi, [0033]) over a local area network for receiving (noting intended use as achieved by the configuration of wifi control) a plurality of commands to the apparatus from a remote controller through a wireless router, and for transmitting information from the apparatus, the transceiver in electrical communication with the processor (see FIG3).
wherein a command of the plurality of commands from the remote controller can control electrical power to the electrically powered device through the relay of the apparatus (read on by said communications [0044-0045] and [0092].
Robertson fails to teach wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to determine a WiFi ping timeout.
Gordon teaches wherein a processor of the apparatus is configured to determine a WiFi ping timeout (see [0093,0097]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the function of Gordon above into the apparatus for wireless LAN as taught by Robertson with the motivation of known and desirable control of said apparatus that has not received a ping from its host agent for desirable reliability and security.
Robertson further teaches:
4. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of alternating current outlet sockets (see FIG1).
Gordon fails to teach:
2. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to reset power to the apparatus after a plug-in or power loss event.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to determine if a Wi-Fi is initialized.
5. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to reset a Wi-Fi timer of the apparatus.
6. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured determine if a command is pending and to act on the pending command.
7. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured determine if a reset button of the apparatus was hit; wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to process a command received over the local area network; and wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to determine if a scheduled event is pending.
Official Notice is taken that both the concept and advantages of providing for:
2. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to reset power to the apparatus after a plug-in or power loss event.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to determine if a Wi-Fi is initialized.
5. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to reset a Wi-Fi timer of the apparatus.
6. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured determine if a command is pending and to act on the pending command.
7. The apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured determine if a reset button of the apparatus was hit; wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to process a command received over the local area network; and wherein the processor of the apparatus is configured to determine if a scheduled event is pending.
in WiFi enabled apparatuses are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to have included the above limitations as these limitaions are known to provide desirable functional WiFi functions associated with WiFi connections and respective computer/network control over said WiFi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable but for the Double Patenting Rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836