DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/13/2025.
Claims 21-34 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract filed on 03/17/2025 is objected as the language “An example security gate” discloses speculative applications of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 33-34 are brought to applicant’s attention as they both recite limitations set forth in claim 21, to which both claims are dependent from. Note that claim 21 recites “the first piece and the second piece being coupled to each other with fastening members or complementary snaps” and examiner is interpreting both claims such that they further limit claim 21 by eliminating one of the two coupling elements of claim 21. Therefore, no 112(d) set forth for both claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 23, “the openings” should read --the openings of the two of the complete vertical members--.
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 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-11, 13-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11976513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patent includes all features presented for claims 21-34 with the additional feature of having a specified range for the respective width and height of the inner gate opening (claim 27) and that the locking mechanism defines other openings for receiving fingers (claim 32).
However, as the specified range is an obvious non-inventive feature, the dimensions of the inner gate opening can be modified for optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the dimensions of the inner gate opening to the claimed dimensions, with a reasonable expectation of success, as an engineering design choice and such that the gate opening would be optimized to permit smaller pets or children into the inner gate opening without allowing bigger animals or adults to pass through. Furthermore, modifying the gate opening into these ranges would allow it to meet different household requirements.
Additionally, the openings for receiving fingers of the locking mechanism is an obvious non-inventive feature. For example, Walt et al. (US 20070003365) (hereinafter “Walt”) teaches a locking mechanism (figures 3-5) with an opening for receiving fingers (68 and 70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the locking mechanism with openings for receiving fingers, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved grip and ease of actuating the locking mechanism.
Therefore, with the reasons presented above, the present claims are not patentably distinct from the US Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-34 could be found allowable if the Double Patenting rejection is overcome via terminal disclaimer. Also, all objectionable matters must be addressed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance upon filing appropriate terminal disclaimers: the prior art Brokish et al. (US 2803074) in view of Flannery et al. (US 20120233922) and in further view of Hunt (US 6178693) appear to teach most of the limitations set forth on the independent claim 21 as they teach a security gate with a locking mechanism.
Detailed reasons for allowance were set forth in the notice of allowance for parent case US 1976513.
Further modifications such that a combination would read into the claim limitations will require hindsight and/or a piece meal rejection such that examiner finds the combination to be unreasonable to apply and reject the claims as recited. Thus, examiner has indicated the claims allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights