DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This communication is in response to applicant’s response to a Non-Final Office Action submitted on September 08, 2026.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 Torrington, 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,308,788 B2.
Claim 21 is generally broader than claim 1 in US Patent No. 11,308,788 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Sting, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claim 21 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,321 B2.
Claim 21 is generally broader than claim 1 in US Patent No. 11,430,321 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Sting, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claim 21 is non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,759 B2.
Claim 21 is generally broader than claim 1 in US Patent No. 12,254,759 B2. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Sting, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
This is a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited arts are further to show the state of art related to audible alarm for electric motors.
TEVORA et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0357886 A1), discloses a system, devices and methods for training of a health care worker, real time monitoring of a health care worker and providing real time corrective guidance for procedures related to hospital infection control. Furthermore, the devices, systems and methods of the present invention are configured to provide monitoring the performance and the quality of a hand hygiene procedure and providing real time, in accordance with the World Health Organization's “5 Moments Hand Hygiene” events protocol, corrective guidance to the health care worker procedures and practice related to hospital infection control.
FINISON et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0227530 A1), discloses a method for detecting presence of protein or biofilm on a surface includes applying a composition to the surface, and observing a color reaction if protein or biofilm is present on the surface. The composition comprises a first part that includes copper sulfate and a second part that includes a reagent capable of reacting with the copper sulfate to produce a visible color reaction when contacted with protein or biofilm.
HAYES et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0148485 A1), discloses a surface cleaning assistance system including a surface and a sensor mounted relative to the surface. The sensor is configured to detect pressure applied to the surface and generates sensor signals based on the detected pressure. The system also includes a controller in communication with the sensor and has stored therein a cleaning target value. The controller is configured to receive the sensor signals from the sensor, to compare the sensor signals to the cleaning target value, and to generate an output signal associated with the sensor signals, the output signal indicating whether the sensor signals indicate a pressure below, at, or above the cleaning target value.
REID et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0116803 A1), discloses a room monitoring system including a plurality of in-room units that collect information relating to a clean or dirty status of a plurality of patient rooms and/or equipment in the rooms. A monitoring station receives clean or dirty status information from the in-room units and determines which rooms are clean, and ready for a patient, which are dirty and in need of cleaning.
GAUTHIER et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,966,753), discloses a method for controlling plumbing fixtures includes an electronic control board having a microprocessor that accepts four inputs and produces four outputs. The control board can form a node on a network that monitors and controls the functions of multiple boards throughout a facility.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISAY YACOB whose telephone number is (571)272-8562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30-07:00 ET.
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, BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/SISAY YACOB/ October 09, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights