CTNF 19/195,913 CTNF 95460 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-33 AIA 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 21-38 of U.S. Patent No. 11929157 B2 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12315613 B2. Regarding Claim 1 , Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claims include similar limitations provided in bold. A system for use with a remote dispatch center configured to dispatch a vehicle to an initial location of an incident scene, the system comprising: a patient support apparatus including: a base supporting a plurality of caster wheels, a support frame disposed above the base, a patient support surface coupled to the support frame for supporting a patient, a lift mechanism to move the support frame relative to the base between a plurality of vertical configurations, and a navigation system configured to generate a path from the initial location to a refined location; and an unloading system configured to unload the patient support apparatus from the vehicle at the initial location, the unloading system including a trolley and a track, wherein the patient support apparatus is configured to couple to the trolley and the trolley is configured to move along the track. Regarding Claim 20 , Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claims include similar limitations provided in bold. A system for use with a remote dispatch center configured to dispatch a vehicle to an initial location of an incident scene, the system comprising: a patient support apparatus including: a base supporting a plurality of caster wheels, a support frame disposed above the base, a patient support surface coupled to the support frame for supporting a patient, and a lift mechanism to move the support frame relative to the base between a plurality of vertical configurations, and a navigation system configured to generate a path from the initial location to the refined location; an unloading system configured to unload the patient support apparatus from the vehicle at the initial location, the unloading system including a trolley and a track, wherein the patient support apparatus is configured to couple to the trolley and the trolley is configured to move along the track; and a portable electronic device configured to communicate a refined location of the incident scene. Regarding Claims 2-19: Applicant provided similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-20 and 21-38 of the issued U.S. Patents. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/steps or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its functions(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note, Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader, with the exception of the sensor), there are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations. Examiner notes wherein the nonstatutory double patenting rejections provided herein would be overcome with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provision 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 provision 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 1.32(b). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Di Benedetto et al (US Pub 2019/0130770 A1) relates to system for delivering medical supplies via drone. Li Xia-lin (CN 106137570 A) relates to a patient support apparatus that departs from an ambulance. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30. 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, Khoi Tran can be reached on Monday-Thursday . 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. /T.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/195,913 Page 2 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/195,913 Page 3 Art Unit: 3656
Prosecution Insights