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 .
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 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26-29, and 31-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,335,408. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. In the parent application, the edge layer sensor is referred to only as being coupled to the DESI controller, whereas in the instant application, the edge layer sensors are claimed explicitly and include a sensor module and sensor monitoring input, which are both intrinsic to a sensor device. Claims 31-34 of the instant application correspond to claims 3-6 of the parent application. The other dependent claims are minor and obvious variants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26-29, and 31-34 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection of record.
Please see the case history for parent application 17/355,818, specifically the non-final rejection mailed 12/01/2023 and the final-rejection mailed 8/7/2024 for reasons for allowance. Also, the closest prior art is Logue (US 2016/0105288) which teaches:
Logue teaches an apparatus comprising:
a microcontroller configured as a digital sensor controller (multiple intelligent, multi-sensing, network-connected appliances - see [0028], [0029], [0047], and [0084]), wherein the microcontroller is configured to:
couple at least one sensor through at least one sensor input, wherein the at least one sensor input comprises a digital communications interface (an appliance can announce itself to the smart-home network, such as by indicating what type of appliance it is, and it can automatically integrate with the controls of the smart home. Such communication by the appliance to the smart home can be facilitated by any wired or wireless communication protocols - see [0028] and [0047]).
authenticate the at least one sensor (registration can be made at a central server to authenticate the occupant and/or the home device as being associated with the home and to give permission to the occupant to use the device to control the smart devices in the home; notification signals sent by the away-service robots to the activity sensing system are authenticated and encrypted such that the notifications cannot be learned and replicated by a potential burglar. Any of a variety of known encryption/authentication schemes can be used to ensure such data security including, bot limited to, methods involving third party data security services or certificate authorities. For some embodiments, a permission request-response model can be used, wherein any particular away-service robot requests permission from each activity sensing system in the home when it is ready to perform its away-service tasks and does not initiate such activity until receives a yes or permission granted message from each activity sensing system; security information 470 may include certificates, public/private keys, and/or other share secrets that allow devices to authenticate with each other to create a secure connection - see [0033], [0056], and [0104]).
However, Logue does not teach the claims as instantly recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA C LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7am-2pm.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/LISA C LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights