DETAILED ACTION
The application of Hunter et al., for an “Incident detection and management” filed on June 14, 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18948339, filed on November 14, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18223322, filed on July 18, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12147293, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17592841, filed on February 4, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11720432, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17104890, filed on November 25, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.11243830, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16830061, filed on March 25, 2020, now U.S. Patent No.10970150, has been examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 14, 2025 has been considered.
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled by a preliminary amendment.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
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 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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10970150. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10970150 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11243830. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11243830 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11720432. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11720432 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147293. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147293 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending parent Application No. 18948339. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of copending parent Application No. 18948339 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 21-40 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Reasons for allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 21-40 are rejected under a nonstatutory type double patenting rejection as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of the parent application No. 18948339, which were allowed in an office action mailed on May 20, 2026. Claims 21-40 would be allowable if a proper terminal disclaimer is filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights