DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application filed on January 29, 2025, in which claims 2 through 21 are pending, and ready for examination.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/525,113 filed on November 30, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,244,626, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/660,187 filed on April 21, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,838,305, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/069,415 filed on October 13, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,522,894, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/525,415 filed on July 29, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,841,325, which claims domestic benefit as a Continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/058,810 filed on August 8, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171, which claims domestic benefit from Provisional Application Nos. 62/550,439 filed on August 25, 2017, 62/545,917 filed on August 15, 2017, and 62/542,288 filed on August 8, 2017.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on April 4, 2025.
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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following rationale:
Independent claims 2, 8, and 15 of the instant application are merely broader recitations of that which is recited in independent claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171. That is, independent claims 2, 8, and 15 of the instant application are anticipated by independent claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are also rejected as these claims recite various limitations also recited in the independent and/or dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,171.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “by an agent operating on endpoint”.
It appears the claim should recite, “by an agent operating on an endpoint”.
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 2-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 8, and 15 each recite “the anomalous indicator”.
The foregoing recitation renders the claim(s) indefinite because there are two previous recitations of “an anomalous indicator”, and so it is not explicitly clear as to which “anomalous indicator” the element in question refers.
Claim 15 recites “the agent”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this element in the claim(s).
Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are each dependent upon one of claims 2, 8, or 15, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale based upon that dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Herz, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0091573
Baradaran, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0126718
Yin, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0280864
Youd, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0270157
Kienzle, et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,844,041
Lui, et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0080641
Palmer, Matthew, U.S. Patent No. 7,882,538
Ghanea-Hercock, U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0255157
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Brant Murphy whose telephone number is (571)272-6433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/J. BRANT MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights