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 .
The application of Martis for a “micromarket security system and method” filed on May 27, 2025 has been examined.
This application is a CON of 18,177,016, filed on March 1, 2023, now US# 12,340,359,
which is a CIP of 17,522,351, filed on November 9, 2021, now US# 11,620,625,
which is a CON of 16/428,486 filed on May 31, 2019, now US# 11,182,763.
This application claims priority to U.S. provisional application number 62/682,112, which is filed on June 7, 2018.
Claim 1-19 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Under cross references to related applications CIP status needs to be updated. Serial number 18,177,016, filed on March 1, 2023, now US# 12,340,359.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,359 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 1-19 although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is broader than the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,359. In this case, it is noted that the instant claim is identical to the claim of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,359 except without the limitation "a spatial region comprising a physical region having a radius."
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 12,340,359
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19
19 20
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,625 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the Instant application, the different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant Application disclose all the limitations of the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,620,625 and further includes the limitations that wherein the micromarket identification information consists of a universally unique identifier (“UUID”); and associating the UUID from the mobile wireless device with a merchant identifier and a terminal identifier, the merchant identifier and the terminal identifier being stored on the micromarket server coupled to the world wide network of computers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be includes all the limitation of the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,620,625. The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,620,625 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,620,625
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19
19 20
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,182,763 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Referring to Claim 1 of the instant application, the different is that the Claim 1 of the Instant Application did not explicitly disclose a spatial region comprising a physical region having an effective radius of less than twenty feet.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a spatial region comprising a physical region having a radius of the claim 1 of the Instant Application would be cover the spatial region comprising a physical region having an effective radius of less than twenty feet. The claim 1 of the Instant Application would anticipated in the claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,182,763 because all of the pending limitations are recited in the patented claim.
The following claims are patentably similar from each other:
Instant Application Patent No. 11,182,763
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 16
16 17
17 18
18 19
19 20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights