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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Djoharian Behnaz for Portable and Single-Use Device for accessing an Area with restricted Access, Associated Access Key Generation System And Associated Access Control Method filed 12/09/24 has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it include the phrase “The invention”. This is implied and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/09/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12254731.
Although the conflicting claim is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generally broader than the claims in the patent. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See in re Van Ornumand Stang, 214, USPQ 761,766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); in re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622 and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent specifying "pork").
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is broader than claim 1 of US Patent 12,254,731 because the limitations of claim 1 are recited in claim 1 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation of claim 2 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation of claim 3 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation of claim 4 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation of claim 5 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 7 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation of claim 8 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 9 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is broader than claim 13 of US Patent 12,254,731 because the limitations of claim 9 are recited in claim 13 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation of claim 9 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation of claim 10 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation that is equivalent to claim 9 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is broader than claim 7 of US Patent 12,254,731 because the limitations of claim 13 are recited in claim 7 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is broader than claim 15 of US Patent 12,254,731 because the limitations of claim 14 are recited in claim 15 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the limitation that is equivalent to claim 16 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation that is equivalent to claim 18 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is broader than claim 15 of US Patent 12,254,731 because the limitations of claim 17 are recited in claim 15 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitation that is equivalent to claim 10 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitation that is equivalent to claim 17 of US Patent 12,254,731.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation of claim 19 of US Patent 12,254,731.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,6,10-11,13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bedell, Jr. US Patent Application Publication 20180220947.
Regarding claim 1, Bedell teaches a portable access device for accessing a restricted area comprising a support, a sensor and an access control stage, wherein the portable access device is for single use in that the sensor is capable of being brought into contact with a biological sample taken from a subject (the cartridge contain the biological sample and is therefore single use and is a consumable product, paragraph 021-028), the support comprising comprises a disposable part and a retainable part (fig. 2, the wearable device represent the retainable part and the biological-assay cartridge represent the disposable part), the sensor is capable of being carried by the disposable part of the support and is configured to measure at least one health parameter of a subject, and to deliver a detection signal representative of the measurement of each health parameter (paragraph 028), the access control stage (biological -assay reader) is capable of being carried by the retainable part of the support and is configured to store access information depending on the detection signal delivered by the sensor (paragraph 031,033), and
the retainable part of the support is capable of being able to be mechanically separated from the disposable part in order to form an access key which (the cartridge is removable from the wearable device, paragraph 027), depending on the access information, permits or prohibits access to the restricted- access area (access to the vehicle is denied based on the blood alcohol level determined from the biological sensors, paragraph 037) .
Regarding claim 2, Bedell, JR. teaches the sensor 46} is configured to deliver a detection signal representative of the presence or absence of at least one predetermined analyte in the biological sample, the detection signal also being representative of the presence or absence of at least one predetermined analyte in the biological sample (paragraph 027-028).
Regarding claim 4, Bedell teaches the access information comprises the detection signal and/or data relating to the presence or absence of at least one predetermined analyte (access to the vehicle is denied based on the blood alcohol level determined from the biological sensors, paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 6, Bedell, JR. teaches the access control stage is configured to receive the detection signal (paragraph 031), wherein the access control stage being further configured to establish, with an external data processing unit and a wireless link, and to transmit, to the data processing unit via the wireless link, the detection signal received from the sensor (the processing unit 51 receive the wireless signal from the biosensor system for processing, paragraph 033-035), the access control stage also being configured to receive, from the data processing unit via the wireless link, an analysis signal established on the basis of the detection signal and comprising the access information (access data from the MICD device regarding the user alcohol level is transmitted to the wearable device, paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 10, Bedell, JR teaches the access control stage is electrically connected to the sensor by means of a connection bus, the retainable part of the support is connected to the disposable part by a multi-contact connector, and the retainable part is configured to be separated from the disposable part by disconnection, the connection bus being configured to be interrupted, upon separation of the retainable part from the disposable part, a male part of the connector being able to be contained either on the retainable part or on the disposable part (USB bus connect the sensor to the control stage, paragraph 025)
Regarding claim 11, Bedell, JR teaches the access control stage forms at least part of a radio tag., preferably able to implement a near-field communication (paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 13, Bedell, JR a data processing unit configured to receive the detection signal, to generate, from the received detection signal, an analysis signal comprising the access information, and to provide the analysis signal to the access control stage (access information to access the vehicle is generated, paragraph 037).
Regarding claim 18, Bedell, JR teaches the access control stage 1s able to implement a near-field communication (RFID, paragraph 037).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell, Jr. US Patent Application Publication 20180220947 in view of Lalonde et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190262827.
Regarding claim 3, Bedell, JR. is silent on teaching the sensor is composed of a graphene sheet, said graphene sheet being covered with a thin layer having functional groups specific to a given analyte. Lalonde et al. in an analogous art teaches the sensor is composed of a graphene sheet, said graphene sheet being covered with a thin layer having functional groups specific to a given analyte (paragraph 032-033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bedell, JR as disclosed by Lalonde et al. because such modification represents the substitution of one known sensor for another and producing the predictable result of detecting a specific analyte from a biological sample.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell, Jr. US Patent Application Publication 20180220947 in view of Caposcasale US Patent Application Publication 20170206329.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Bedell is silent on teaching the access control stage is further configured to store a unique identifier of the subject. Caposcasale in an analogous art teaches storing a unique identifier of the subject and the unique identifier is associated with the biological samples (paragraph 053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bedell as disclosed by Capocasale because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Bedell by ensuring that access privileges can be uniquely assigned and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell, Jr. US Patent Application Publication 20180220947 in view of Davis et al. US Patent 11471078.
Regarding claim 7, Bedell, JR. teaches the control stage generate an interrogation signal for the sensor, the sensor being configured to deliver the detection signal following reception of the interrogation signal generated by the access control stage (paragraph 031-032) but is silent on teaching the access control stage is also configured to receive energy via the wireless link, the access control stage being configured to take at least some of the received energy in order to generate an interrogation signal for the sensor, the sensor being configured to deliver the detection signal following reception of the interrogation signal generated by the access control stage. Davis et al. in an analogous art teaches control stage is also configured to receive energy via the wireless link, the access control stage being configured to take at least some of the received energy in order to generate an interrogation signal for the sensor (col. 6 line 64- col. 7 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bedell, JR as disclosed by Davis et al. because such modification represents a substitution of one form of energy source for another for providing the predictable result of powering the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686