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 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,366,090. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 are generic to all that is recited in claims -4, 7-10, 12-13, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent Number 12,366,090. In other words, claims -4, 7-10, 12-13, and 16-21 of U.S. Patent Number 12,366,090 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-16 and therefore anticipates claims 1-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 11,180,929 to Walsh.
Walsh discloses a locking system for a temperature-controlled container, the container comprising an interior and a barrier having an open position allowing access to the interior of the container and a closed position blocking access to the interior of the container, the locking system comprising: a temperature sensor (50) configured to sense a temperature within the interior of the container; a locking device (30) configured to be coupled to the barrier to lock the barrier in the closed position; and a controller (60) in communication with the locking device and the temperature sensor, the controller configured to receive the sensed temperature from the temperature sensor and control the locking device based on the sensed temperature, wherein the controller is configured to control the locking device to lock the barrier in the closed position in response to the sensed temperature rising above a predetermined threshold temperature (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 1.
Walsh also discloses the locking device comprises a solenoid lock and a voltage controller configured to apply a voltage to actuate the solenoid lock (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 2, wherein the solenoid lock locks the barrier when no voltage is applied to the solenoid lock, and the solenoid lock unlocks the barrier when a sufficient voltage is applied to the solenoid lock by the voltage controller (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 3, as well as the locking device further comprises a manual release mechanism configured to manually unlock the solenoid lock in an absence of any voltage applied to the solenoid lock (figure 3 shows a key cylinder lock engagement means; wherein the manual lock cylinder is capable of unlocking the locking system), as in claim 4.
Walsh further discloses after the controller controls the locking device to lock the barrier in the closed position, the controller is configured to unlock the locking device in response to the sensed temperature dropping below the predetermined threshold temperature within a predetermined period of time (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 5, wherein after the controller controls the locking device to lock the barrier in the closed position, the controller is configured to prevent unlocking of the locking device based on temperature in response to the sensed temperature remaining above the predetermined threshold temperature for the predetermined period of time (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 6, and the controller is configured to control the locking device to lock the barrier in the closed position when the sensed temperature falls below a further predetermined threshold temperature (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 7, as well as the controller is further configured to control the locking device to lock the barrier in the closed position at a predetermined time (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 8), as in claim 8.
Walsh additionally discloses a locking method for a temperature-controlled container, the container comprising an interior and a barrier having an open position allowing access to the interior of the container and a closed position blocking access to the interior of the container, the locking method comprising: sensing a temperature within the interior of the container (via sensor 50); and locking the barrier in the closed position with a locking device (30) in response to the sensed temperature rising above a predetermined threshold temperature (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 9.
Walsh also discloses locking the barrier in the closed position when no power is supplied to the locking device (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 10, as well as after locking the barrier in the closed position, unlocking the locking device in response to the sensed temperature dropping below the predetermined threshold temperature within a predetermined period of time (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 11, and after locking the barrier in the closed position, preventing unlocking of the locking device based on temperature in response to the sensed temperature remaining above the predetermined threshold temperature for the predetermined period of time (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 12.
Walsh further discloses locking the barrier in the closed position when the sensed temperature falls below a further predetermined threshold temperature (column 5, lines 13-21), as in claim 13, and locking the barrier in the closed position at a predetermined time (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 8), as in claim 14, as well as selecting the predetermined threshold temperature based on a safety or quality of contents in the interior of the container (column 4, lines 46-59), as in claim 15, in addition to selecting the predetermined threshold temperature based on an energy cost of controlling the temperature in the interior of the container (column 5, lines 28-40), as in claim 16.
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 temperature dependent locking assemblies:
U.S. Patent Number 11,514,764 to Correnti et al.; U.S. Patent Number 4,593,543 to Stefanek; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0177551 to Clifford et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0011232 to Moonier; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0340351 to Harkonen et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0260775 to Denison et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0145904 to Lowder; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0202220 to Denison et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0203331 to Picard et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0284200 to Moon et al.; U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0045330 to Moon et al.
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/
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights