DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 11, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 requires “adjust[ing] one or more of the plurality of pumps to compensate for the first pump”. It is unclear if the second pump is included in this “one or more of the plurality of pumps” and if so, if the ramp up of the second pump recited in claim 2, the claim from which claim 6 depends, is part of this adjustment? Correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Similar to the above rejection, it is unclear if the “one or more of the plurality of pumps” recited in claims 7 and 8 include the second pump of claim 2 and if the adjustment recited in claims 7 and 8 is part of the ramp up of the second pump. Correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claim 12: Line 8 of claim 12 recites “detecting that the first parameter is outside of an acceptable threshold”. It is unclear what is detecting the first parameter. Is it the second sensing device or the one or more processors? Correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claim 15 Claim 15 requires “adjust[ing] one or more of the plurality of pumps to compensate for the first pump”. It is unclear if the second pump is included in this “one or more of the plurality of pumps” and if so, if the ramp up of the second pump recited in claim 14, the claim from which claim 15 depends, is part of this adjustment? Correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claims 16 and 17: Similar to the above rejection, it is unclear if the “one or more of the plurality of pumps” recited in claims 16 and 17 include the second pump of claim 15 and if the adjustment recited in claims 16 and 17 is part of the ramp up of the second pump. Correction and clarification are required.
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 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader recitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,655,435.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader recitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,125.
Claims 1 and 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,442,281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 9-11 of the instant application are merely broader recitations of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,442,281 and claim 12 of the instant application is considered the obvious method of use of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,442,281.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action, or a Terminal Disclaimer filed.
Claims 6-8 and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s), also set forth in this Office action, or a Terminal Disclaimer filed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 12: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest transmitting a first parameter from a first sensing device to a second sensing device and generating automated control instructions at the second sensing device based at least in part on the first parameter as recited in the claimed combination and method.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-20: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 or 12.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
2/4/2026