DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,204,729. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The invention in the current application is the same invention as claimed in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,204,729 (wherein the scope of US 12,204,729 is identical to the current application). Specifically the language of claims 1-20 is found in claims 1-20 of US 12,204,729, respectively.
Although the instant application contains additional language in claim 1 (see the language: “configured for touchless operation”, located in the preamble; and see the language: “proximity-based touchless functionality”, located in the third paragraph of claim 1) that is not found in US 12,204,729, this quoted language is interpreted broadly and does not affect the interpretation of the scope of the patent (wherein the interpreted scope of both the application and the patent remain identical). Further wherein a “touchless indication” of parent US 12,204,729 is interpreted as a “touchless operation” or a “proximity-based touchless functionality” of the instant application. Further this additional language does not change the scope of the instant application (wherein a touchless indication requires a device to have touchless operation and proximity-based touchless functionality). Applicant is encouraged to narrow the current claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the statutory double patenting rejection, the Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses and does not agree with the Examiner’s rejections and reasoning thereof”. Other than a blanket disagreement, the Applicant fails to articulate specific points or detailed reasoning (e.g. arguing how the pending claims are not identical in scope to the cited reference). Therefore the rejection is maintained, as both the instant application and the cited reference have the same scope as described above.
In regards to the terminal disclaimer that has been filed, the Applicant is reminded that 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.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN J MISHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7251. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, NITIN PATEL can be reached on (571)272-7677. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBIN J MISHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628