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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the correspondence received through January 1, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement submitted June 20, 2025, October 13, 2025, and January 19, 2026 and their contents have been considered.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,622,754 B2 (the ’754 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the ’754 patent disclose the features of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Compare, e.g., claims 1 of the instant application and the ’754 patent.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
The independent claims recite features for determining that an auxiliary device detects an ultrasonic beacon; identifying, in response to the determining that the auxiliary device detects the ultrasonic beacon and based on a first transmission of the ultrasonic beacon and a second transmission of the ultrasonic beacon that is subsequent to the first transmission, a medical system associated with the ultrasonic beacon; and communicatively pairing, in response to the identifying the medical system, the auxiliary device with the identified medical system.
The relevance of Shelton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0201122 A1) to the present claims are indicated in the prosecution history of the priority patent application 17/777,520.
Tsfaty et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0131539 A1) discloses techniques for service discovery and connection establishment of a point-to-point (e.g., device-to-device) wireless communication. Wireless devices may initiate point-to-point communication utilizing ultrasonic signals. A user may initiate a scan for one device to detect, select, and establish a connection with another device, where the scan utilizes an ultrasonic signal. Once connected, the device may create a profile with one another and/or wirelessly communicate with one another to, for example, exchange data. However, Tsfaty does not disclose the features recited in the independent claims.
Foelsch et al. (WO 2021/108437 A1) discloses a device pairing system is configured to determine that an auxiliary device detects an ultrasonic beacon emitted by a beacon generator and identify, in response to the determination that the auxiliary device detects the ultrasonic beacon, a medical system associated with the ultrasonic beacon. The auxiliary device is further configured to communicatively pair, in response to the identification of the medical system, the auxiliary device with the identified medical system. However, Foelsch does not disclose the features recited in the independent claims.
Cannell et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0327161 A1) teaches real-time location platform beacon protocol systems and methods. In Cannell, a cloud-based processing system receives location information and health status information of a plurality of beacon devices. The location information indicates real-time locations of the plurality of beacon devices, and the health status information indicates real-time conditions of the plurality of beacon devices. The processing system tracks movements of at least some of the plurality of beacon devices based on the location information and identifies problematic beacon devices based on the health status information. However, Cannell fails to disclose all of the features of the independent claims, including those identified above.
Carotenuto et al. (“An Indoor Ultrasonic System for Autonomous 3-D Positioning,” in IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 2507-2518, July 2019) teaches that indoor positioning is an emerging technology with wide applications. Augmented and mixed reality need accurate and real-time positioning of user’s limbs or direction of sight in real time, and reference points within the real environment. Positioning is also required for many others contexts. Indoor positioning of mobile units (MUs) can be provided by multilateration techniques that compute the location of an MU starting from distance measurements between the MU and a set of beacons. In Carotenuto, a nonlinear closed-form solution for the trilateration problem is employed to avoid heavy numerical iterative algorithms. However, Carotenuto fails to disclose all of the features of the independent claims, including those identified above.
The closest art of record, including the references discussed above, each fail to teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of the claims as presently arranged in the claims. Further, based on the evidence of record, it appears as though one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would not look to combine these references, or the closest art of record, to arrive at the present claims, without using impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Tokarczyk, whose telephone number is 571-272-9594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Mamon Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B TOKARCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights