DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of claim 1 and line 14 of claim 11, each occurrence of “wherein the ferrous material,” should be changed to --wherein-- to remove repetitive limitations within the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,980. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 6-21 of ‘980 substantially recite all of the limitations in claims 1-21 of the instant application including: wherein the first conductive wire coil is disposed in (e.g. “suspended in” of ‘980) an insulating material; a first housing (e.g. “first non-conductive mechanical structure” of ‘980), wherein the second conductive wire coil is disposed in (e.g. “suspended in” of ‘980) a ferrous material; a second housing (e.g. “second non-conductive mechanical structure” of ‘980), a distance between a center of the first non-conductive tube and a center of the second non-conductive tube is less than 3 inches (e.g. “less than 2.25 inches” of ‘980). The claims have been rejected under an “anticipatory type” analysis rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long US Patent 7,948,342, as cited by the Applicant in view of Ba US Patent 11,121,676.
As per claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, and 21, Long discloses in Figs. 1-2 an electrical system (e.g. electromotive rectification system 100 and breaker panel 200), comprising a neutral and/or ground filter system (Col. 1 lines 27-28; System therein minimizes power transients (i.e. filters surges, etc.) on neutral conductors.), comprising:
as per claims 1 and 11, a first coil unit (e.g. coil unit 130) comprising a first conductive wire coil (e.g. coil 132), wherein the first conductive wire coil comprises a first end (e.g. right end thereof) and an opposite second end (e.g. left end thereof), the first conductive wire coil is disposed in an insulating material (e.g. air or another insulating medium 136), the first conductive wire coil and the insulating material are disposed in a first housing (e.g. PVC tube 134), and the first end of the first conductive wire coil is electrically coupled to a first contact (e.g. second contact 138) that extends from the first housing; and a second coil unit (e.g. coil unit 120) comprising a second conductive wire coil (e.g. coil 122), wherein the second conductive wire coil comprises a first end (e.g. left end thereof) and an opposite second end (e.g. right end thereof), the second conductive wire coil is disposed in a ferrous material (e.g. ferrous filings 126), wherein the second conductive wire coil and the ferrous material are disposed in a second housing (e.g. non-conductive tube 124), the opposite second end of the second conductive wire coil is electrically coupled to a second contact (e.g. contact 128) that extends from the second housing, and the first end of the second conductive wire coil is electrically coupled to the opposite second end of the first conductive wire coil (The left end of the coil 122 is directly coupled to the left end of the coil 132.);
as per claim 3, wherein the first conductive wire coil and the second conductive wire coil each comprise 12 to 1000 turns of conductive wire (Col. 2 lines 65-67 and Col. 3 lines 5-8, 13-14 turns which is necessarily between 12-1000 turns);
as per claims 6 and 17, a housing unit (e.g. housing 110) in which the first coil unit and the second coil unit are both disposed;
as per claims 8 and 19, a housing insulating material (e.g. insulating material 112) disposed in the housing unit;
as per claim 10, wherein the first contact and the second contact further extend from the housing unit, providing electrical contacts to other electrical systems (The contacts 128 and 138 extend from housing 110 to connect to circuit breaker panel 200.);
as per claim 11, a conductor bar (e.g. neutral bus bar 220/ground bus bar 208);
as per claim 12, wherein the conductor bar is a neutral bar (e.g. neutral bus bar 220) and a first set of conducting wires (e.g. neutral wires 216) comprises all neutral wires of the electrical system that are electrically coupled to the neutral bar;
as per claim 13, wherein the conductor bar is a ground bar (e.g. ground bus bar 208) and a first set of conducting wires (e.g. ground wires 214) comprises all ground wires of the electrical system that are electrically coupled to the ground bar;
as per claim 15, wherein the first conductive wire coil and the second conductive wire coil each comprise 12 turns of conductive wire (Col. 2 lines 65-67 and Col. 3 lines 5-8, 13-14 turns which necessarily comprises 12 turns); and
as per claim 21, wherein the first contact and the second contact are electrically coupled to a first location and a second location of the conductor bar respectively (e.g. contacts 224 and 222 respectively), wherein the first location and the second location are spaced apart so that a first set of conducting wires (e.g. neutral wires 216) of the electrical system is electrically coupled to the conductor bar at locations between the first location and the second location (Fig. 2; Neutral wires 216 are connected at locations between the contacts 222 and 224 at the neutral bus bar 220.).
However, Long does not disclose the neutral and/or ground filter system being a neutral and/or ground harmonic filter system.
Ba exemplarily discloses in Fig. 3 two coupled coils L1 and L2, where the coupling allows the coils to suppress harmonic frequencies thereof (Col. 2 lines 28-36 of Ba). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the coupling of the coils of Long to have necessarily suppressed harmonic frequencies thereof as being an obvious design consideration of yielding expected results based on the exemplary teachings of Ba. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included: the neutral and/or ground filter system being a neutral and/or ground harmonic filter system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Andrea Lindgren-Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights