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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,275. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claimed invention must fall into one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention, a process (or method), a machine (or system); an article of manufacture; or a composite of matter. However, claims 16-20 do not fall within one of these recognized categories. Applicant’s specification does not preclude the medium from being a carrier wave. Examiner notes that since claims 16-20 are drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, the claims maybe amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments, the examiner suggests to the applicant to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, amend the claim to include the phrase “non-transitory”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US Pg. Pub. No. (2019/0184838) referred to hereinafter as Lee.
As per claim 1, Lee teaches a method to distribute power in an electrical power delivery environment (see at least Abstract), the method comprising: detecting incoming electrical power provided by a connection with a power source (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53,); determining power needs for a vehicle electrical storage system (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60); determining power needs for a climate control unit used in a transport climate control system (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2); determining electrical power source priorities among the vehicle electrical storage system and the climate control unit based on at least the determined power needs (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2); and apportioning the incoming electrical power between the vehicle electrical storage system and the climate control unit based on at least in part the determined electrical power source priorities (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2 s15-s17).
As per claim 2, Lee teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the method is executed by a power distribution unit that is electrically affixed to a vehicle that is at least partially electrically powered (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 3, Lee teaches a method of claim 2, wherein the determining of electrical charging priorities includes assessing a time required to fully power the vehicle electrical storage system and the climate control unit (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 4, Lee teaches a method of claim 2, wherein the determining of the electrical power source priorities includes placing a higher priority on delivering power to the climate control unit (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 5, Lee teaches a method of claim 4, wherein the vehicle electrical storage system delivers power to a battery of the vehicle (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 6, Lee teaches a method of claim 4, wherein the power is delivered to an electrical storage device of the climate control unit (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 7, Lee teaches a method of claim 4, wherein the determining of electrical power source priorities includes prioritizing transport load integrity over delivering power to the vehicle electrical storage system (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 8, Lee teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the apportioning includes directing at least a majority of the incoming electrical power to the climate control unit (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claim 9, Lee teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the apportioning includes directing at least some of the incoming electrical power to the vehicle electrical storage system (see at least abstract, Summary, Para 28, 53, 60, fig. 2).
As per claims 10-20, the limitations of claims 10-20 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-9, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Please refer to from 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights