DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bulgin (GB 700,751) in view of Mooring (5,667,152) in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 6,376939) or Zajac et al. (2002/0079887).
With respect to claim 1, Bulgin discloses a safety system for a machine comprising a sensor array (3a-3c) comprising at least two sensor elements having conductive windings, each sensor element comprising a protective plate (defined by the machine frame surrounding the magnetic elements) and a conductive winding , each conductive winding comprising at least one loop of wire; a sensor circuit configured to sense a current induced in the conductive windings by a magnetic field of a magnetic safety device (defined by a permanent magnet of a strap worn on the operators’ wrist or attached to a glove worn by the operator; see page, 44-53), the current induced by moving the magnetic safety device proximate to the sensor array, the sensor circuit further comprising an amplifier (4, 5) that generated an amplified signal proportional to the current. Bulgin also teaches that an operation of a cutting machine is interrupted when the signal is greater than a threshold (a predetermined value). See Figs. 1-2; page 4, lines 117-130; and page 5, lines 1-20 in Bulgin.
Bulgin; however, does not expressly disclose that the sensor elements are mounted on opposing sides of an infeed chute; and a comparator to compare the amplified signal to a threshold value.
Mooring teaches a method of automatically interrupting the operation of a cutting machine, the method comprising: forming a sensor array including a first sensor element 48 and a second sensor element 48, the first and second sensor elements are connected in series opposing; mounting the sensor array on opposing sides of an infeed chute 32 of a cutting machine such that the first sensor element is mounted to a first side of the infeed chute and the second sensor element is mounted to an opposing second side of the infeed chute. See Figs. 1-4 and col. 2, lines 34-65 in Mooring. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount Bulgin’ safety system on opposite sides of an infeed chute, as taught by Mooring, in order to provide a safety mechanism for a wood chipper. Bulgin in view of Mooring does not explicitly teach a comparator to compare the amplified signal to a threshold value. However, Suzuki teaches a sensor array including a first sensor element 26 and a second sensor element 26, each sensor element having a guard or protective plate 27, 28. Suzuki also teaches that a comparator compares an amplified signal from an amplifier 64 to a threshold value. See Figs. 1-16 and paragraph 93 in Suzuki. Zajac also teaches a sensor array including a first sensor element (A) having at least one loop of wire as a conductive winding, a second sensor element (B) having at least a loop of wire as a conductive winding, an amplifier 46, and a comparator 47. Zajac also teaches a current circuit configured to sense a current induced in the conductive winding by a device. Zajac also teaches that the comparator compares the amplified signal to a threshold value. See Figs.1-2 and paragraph 9 in Zajac. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bulgin’ safety system, as modified by Mooring, with the comparator, as taught by Suzuki or Zajac, in order to facilitated detection of a signal that exceed the threshold value and with high reliability regardless of variation of output single of the amplifier.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,452. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,528,452 discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS AMAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-8941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
/CARLOS AMAYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836