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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 “fudustrial” should read “industrial”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is not clear of what the “MEMS” is in the claims and specification.
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. 11,268,459. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have the same scope.
a cloud service; a plurality of reach-based components; a plurality of wireless gas sensors operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes are connected to the cloud service through the reach-based components (see claim 1 of ‘459).
For claim 2 (see claim 2 of ‘459).
For claim 3 (see claim 3 of ‘459).
For claim 4 (see claim 5 of ‘459).
For claim 5 (see claim 6 of ‘459).
For claim 6 (see claim 7 of ‘459).
For claim 7 (see claim 8 of ‘459).
For claim 8 (see claim 9 of ‘459).
For claim 9 (see claim 4 of ‘459).
For claim 10 (see claim 10 of ‘459).
For claim 11 (see claim 11 of ‘459).
For claim 12 (see claim 12 of ‘459).
For claim 13 (see claim 13 of ‘459).
For claim 14 (see claim 14 of ‘459).
For claim 15 (see claim 15 of ‘ 459).
For claim 16 (see claim 16 of ‘459).
For claim 17 (see claim 17 of ‘459).
For claim 18 (see claim 18 of ‘459).
For claim 19 (see claim 19 of ‘459).
For claim 20 (see claim 20 of 459).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,698,035. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have the same scope.
a cloud service; a plurality of reach-based components; a plurality of wireless gas sensors operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes are connected to the cloud service through the reach-based components (see claim 1 of ‘035).
For claim 2 (see claim 1 of ‘035).
For claim 3 (see claim 2 of ‘035).
For claim 4 (see claim 4 of ‘035).
For claim 5 (see claim 5 of ‘035).
For claim 6 (see claim 6 of ‘035).
For claim 7 (see claim 7 of ‘035).
For claim 8 (see claim 8 of ‘035).
For claim 9 (see claim 3 of ‘035).
For claim 10 (see claim 9 of ‘035).
For claim 11 (see claim 10 of ‘035).
For claim 12 (see claim 11 of ‘035).
For claim 13 (see claim 12 of ‘035).
For claim 14 (see claim 13 of ‘035).
For claim 15 (see claim 14 of ‘035).
For claim 16 (see claim 15 of ‘035).
For claim 17 (see claim 16 of ‘035).
For claim 18 (see claim 17 of ‘035).
For claim 19 (see claim 18 of ‘035).
For claim 20 (see claim 19 of ‘035).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have the same scope.
a cloud service; a plurality of reach-based components; a plurality of wireless gas sensors operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes are connected to the cloud service through the reach-based components (see claim 1 of ‘423).
For claim 2 (see claim 2 of ‘423).
For claim 3 (see claim 3 of ‘423).
For claim 4 (see claim 1 of ‘423).
For claim 5 ( see claim 1 of ‘423).
For claim 6 (see claim 1 of ‘423).
For claim 7 (see claim 5 of ‘423).
For claim 8 (see claim 6 of ‘423).
For claim 9 (see claim 4 of ‘423).
For claim 10 (see claim 7 of ‘423).
For claim 11 (see claim 8 of ‘423).
For claim 12 (see claim 9 of ‘423).
For claim 13 (see claim 10 of ‘423).
For claim 14 (see claim 11 of ‘423).
For claim 15 (see claim 12 of ‘423).
For claim 16 (see claim 13 of ‘423).
For claim 17 (see claim 14 of ‘423).
For claim 18 (see claim 15 of ‘423).
For claim 19 (see claim 16 of ‘423).
For claim 20 (see claim 17 of ‘423).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shinohara (2017/0171692).
Shinohara teaches a cloud service 80; a plurality of reach-based components 200, 300, 90;a plurality of wireless gas sensors 2 operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes are connected to the cloud service 80 through the reach-based components 200, 300, 90 (see figures 1-4, [0037]).
For claim 10 (see [0037]).
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ray et al (9,652,955).
Ray et al teaches a cloud service 1004; a plurality of reach-based components 1003, 1005; a plurality of wireless gas sensors 1001 operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes 1001 are connected to the cloud service 1004 through the reach-based components 1003, 1005 (see figure 1, col. 10 line 21-34).
For claim 2 (see col. 11 lines 27-56).
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) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara (2017/0171692) in view of Yang et al (9109935).
Shinohara teaches a cloud service 80; a plurality of reach-based components 200, 300, 90;a plurality of wireless gas sensors 2 operating as nodes to acquire sensor data; wherein the nodes are connected to the cloud service 80 through the reach-based components 200, 300, 90 (see figures 1-4, [0037]). Shinohara does not teach a MEMS sensor. Yang et al teaches a MEMS sensor therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the MEMS sensor on the gas detecting system of Shinohara as taught by Yang et al in order to provide high reliability and extended dynamic measurement range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI H HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-4844. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Lindsay M Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/HAI H HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747