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 1 and 4-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,172. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 4-9 is generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,172. In other words, 1, 4, 6-7 and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,392,172 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1 and 4-9 and therefore anticipates claims 1 and 4-9.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of a spider wrap, comprising: a first cap; a second cap; a wrapping cable connecting the first cap and the second cap, the wrapping cable in cooperation with the first cap and the second cap configured to create a secure enclosure around an item; and a locking cable comprising a first end and a second end, the first end fixed to the first cap, the second end configured to: plug into a receiving port located on either the first cap or the second cap to securely lock the spider wrap to a fixture or an object, and unplug from the receiving port to unlock the spider wrap from the fixture or the object.
The closest prior art of record, U.S. Patent Number 2023/0329469 to Alvarez Garcia, discloses a spider wrap (10), comprising: a first cap (56); a second cap (94); a wrapping cable (80, 82) connecting the first cap and the second cap, the wrapping cable in cooperation with the first cap and the second cap configured to create a secure enclosure (figure 7) around an item (57); and a locking cable (52) comprising a first end and a second end, the first end fixed to the first cap, (figure 1) the second end configured to plug into a receiving port (40) located on a separate housing (18) to securely engage with the housing and unplug from the receiving port to unlock the spider wrap from the fixture or the object.
However, Alvarez Garcia does not disclose the second end configured to plug into a receiving port located on either the first cap or the second cap to securely lock the spider wrap to a fixture or an object.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to item securing devices:
U.S. Patent Number 11,898,379 to Wang et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2025/0325132 to Wang; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0139336 to Necchi.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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 J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights