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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 3/02/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-5,7,13, 19, cancellation of claims 2,6 and the addition of claim 22. .
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference of Aljoe teaches after associating the first tracking object with the items of the plurality of items, transporting the first bin containing the first tracking object and the items of the plurality of items to a destination (the item is placed a labelled case 104 and transported to a destination withing the item processing equipment, col. 3 lines 11-344). The reference of Feldenzer teaches associating the tracking objects with the items without coupling the tracking object to the bin or to the items (col. 4 lines 7-22). Feldenzer teaches using the item processing equipment to sort the first tracking object onto the packages and conveying the first tracking object physically uncoupled from the items of the plurality of items along a conveyor of item processing equipment and onto the packages.(col. 3 lines 34-65).
Applicant’s argument regarding the limitation of disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object is moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 1-4,13,19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11699046.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are recited in the patented claims and are generally broader than the patented claims.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations of the method of tracking items recited in the claim are included in claim 1 of the patented claim and is generally broader than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11699046. Claim 1 of the instant claim refers to a single bin meanwhile claim 1 of the patented claims refers to a plurality of bins.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation are broader than claim 2 of US Patent No. 11699046 because the claim only refers to a single bin while the limitation of the patented refers to a plurality of bins.
Regarding claims 3-4, the limitation are broader than claim 3-4 of US Patent No. 11699046 because the claim only refers to a single bin while the limitation of the patented refers to a plurality of bins.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the method of tracking items recited in the claim are included in claim 9 of the patented claim and is generally broader than claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11699046. Claim 13 of the instant claim refers to a single bin meanwhile claim 9 of the patented claims refers to a plurality of bins.
Regarding claim 19-20, the limitations of the instant claim 19 are generally broader than claim 12 of the patented claim of U.S. Patent No. 11699046. The limitations of the instant claim 19 are included in the patented claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11699046.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,3-4,9-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 in view of Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 and further in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10,163,071.
Regarding claim 1 and 21, Aljoe teaches a method of tracking items, the method comprising: introducing a plurality of items into item processing equipment for processing and scanning the plurality of items with a sensor (col. 2 lines 42-51,col. 3 lines 35-50); sorting, in item processing equipment, items of the plurality of items into a first bin of the item processing equipment (items are scanned and placed in a case according to destination, col. 3 lines 11-34); introducing a first tracking object (RFID label placed on case) into the item processing equipment; scanning the first tracking object with the sensor (col. 3 lines 14-20). Aljoe teaches after sorting the items of the plurality of items into the first bin, sorting with the item processing equipment, the first tracking object into the first bin ( the RFID is read and the bin is routed based on the destination information read from the RFID label, col. 3 lines col. 3 lines 35-52). Aljoe is silent on teaching the first tracking object is physically uncoupled from the first bin and items of the plurality of items. Feldenzer in an analogous art teaches the tracking object that is physically uncoupled and unassociated from the plurality of items is introduced into item processing equipment that processes a plurality of items for delivery (col. 3 lines 22-53). Feldenzer teaches associating in a database the tracking object with the packages to be shipped such that a scan event for the tracking object corresponds to the items to be shipped to a status (the information regarding the items in the box is written to the RFID tag from the database and the RFID tag provides the tracking information for the box, col. 4 lines 7-22). Feldenzer teaches using the item processing equipment to sort the first tracking object onto the packages and conveying the first tracking object physically uncoupled from the items of the plurality of items along a conveyor of item processing equipment and onto the packages.(col. 3 lines 34-65). The placement of items in the bin is disclosed by Aljoe and is based on the items been sorted (col. 3 lines 11-34). Aljoe teaches after associating the first tracking object with the items of the plurality of items, transporting the first bin containing the first tracking object and the items of the plurality of items to a destination (the item is placed a labelled case 104 and transported to a destination withing the item processing equipment, col. 3 lines 11-344). The reference of Feldenzer teaches associating the tracking objects with the items without coupling the tracking object to the bin or to the items (col. 4 lines 7-22). Aljoe in view of Feldenzer is silent on teaching disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object. Quan in an analogous art teaches disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object (col. 21 lines 26-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Aljoe et al. as disclosed by Feldenzer in view of Quan because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Aljoe enabling the further automation of the functions of the item processing machine by automatically linking the tracking object to the items to be shipped. The modification disclosed by Quan reduces cost and provide for the easy attachment and removal of the tracking device to the object to be tracked.
Regarding claim 3, Aljoe teaches moving items are moved using conveyor belt) the first container within a distribution network past the first reader (col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 4, Aljoe teaches the first reader is disposed proximate an entry of a distribution facility of a distribution network, and wherein item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items is updated to indicate arrival at the distribution facility when the first reader scans the first tracking object (scanner is provided at the receiving dock col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 9, Aljoe teaches the first tracking object comprises a radio- frequency identification (RFID) tag that is configured to be scanned by the first reader (col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 10, Aljoe teaches the RFID tag is disposed inside the first tracking object (RFID is in the label, col. 3 lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 11, Aljoe teaches the first tracking object comprises a computer readable code on an exterior surface (barcode, col. 3 lines 11-19).
Regarding claim 12, Aljoe teaches sorting, in item processing equipment, items of the plurality of items into a second bin of the item processing equipment (items are arrange in bins according to destination, col. 2 lines 42-65); introducing a second tracking object into the item processing equipment (the bins are labelled based on destination, col. 3 lines 11-19); scanning the second tracking object with the sensor (col. 3 lines 23-25); sorting, by way of the item processing equipment, the second tracking object into the second bin (col. 3 lines 35-51); and associating, in the database, the second tracking object with the items of the plurality of items sorted into the second bin such that item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items sorted into the second bin is updated when the first reader scans the second tracking object (the case contained items for a particular destination and the case is tracked, col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 13, Aljoe teaches a method of tracking items, the method comprising: scanning a plurality of items with a sensor and sorting, in item processing equipment, items of the plurality of items into a first bin of the item processing equipment (col. 2 lines 42-51,col. 3 lines 35-50); scanning a first tracking object with the sensor (col. 3 lines 14-20); sorting, with item processing equipment, the first tracking object into the first bin and associating, in a database, the first tracking object with the items of the plurality of items sorted into the first bin (the case contained items for a particular destination and the case is tracked, col. 3 lines 11-34). Aljoe is silent on teaching the first tracking object is physically uncoupled from unassociated with a plurality of items. Feldenzer in an analogous art teaches the tracking object that is physically uncoupled and unassociated from the plurality of items is introduced into item processing equipment that processes a plurality of items for delivery (col. 3 lines 22-53). Feldenzer teaches associating in a database the tracking object with the packages to be shipped such that a scan event for the tracking object corresponds to the items to be shipped to a status u (the information regarding the items in the box is written to the RFID tag from the database and the RFID tag provides the tracking information for the box, col. 4 lines 7-22). Aljoe teaches after associating the first tracking object with the items of the plurality of items, transporting the first bin containing the first tracking object and the items of the plurality of items to a destination (the item is placed a labelled case 104 and transported to a destination withing the item processing equipment, col. 3 lines 11-344). The reference of Feldenzer teaches associating the tracking objects with the items without coupling the tracking object to the bin or to the items (col. 4 lines 7-22). Aljoe in view of Feldenzer is silent on teaching disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object. Quan in an analogous art teaches disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object (col. 21 lines 26-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Aljoe et al. as disclosed by Feldenzer because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Aljoe enabling the further automation of the functions of the item processing machine by automatically linking the tracking object to the items to be shipped. The modification disclosed by Quan reduces cost and provide for the easy attachment and removal of the tracking device to the object to be tracked.
Regarding claim 14, Aljoe teaches a first container is at the first bin such that the items of the plurality of items and the first tracking object are sorted into the first container at the first bin (col. 3 lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 15, Aljoe teaches moving items are moved using conveyor belt) the first container within a distribution network past the first reader (col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 16, Aljoe teaches the first reader is disposed proximate an entry of a distribution facility of a distribution network, and wherein item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items is updated to indicate arrival at the distribution facility when the first reader scans the first tracking object (scanner is provided at the receiving dock col. 3 lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 17, Aljoe teaches sorting, in item processing equipment, items of the plurality of items into a second bin of the item processing equipment (items are arrange in bins according to destination, col. 2 lines 42-65); introducing a second tracking object into the item processing equipment (the bins are labelled based on destination, col. 3 lines 11-19); scanning the second tracking object with the sensor (col. 3 lines 23-25); sorting, by way of the item processing equipment, the second tracking object into the second bin (col. 3 lines 35-51);
Regarding claim 18, Aljoe teaches updating the item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items sorted into the first bin when a reader scans the first tracking object (col. 3 lines 11-34).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 in view of in view of Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10,163,071 and further in view of Kantor et al. US Patent 10157337.
Regarding claim 5, Aljoe is silent on teaching the first reader is disposed proximate an exit of a distribution facility of a distribution network, and wherein item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items is updated to indicate departure from the distribution facility when the first reader scans the first tracking object. Kantor et al. in an analogous art teaches a reader is disposed proximate an exit of a distribution facility of a distribution network, and wherein item information in the database for the items of the plurality of items is updated to indicate departure from the distribution facility when the first reader scans the first tracking object (col. 4 lines 44-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan as disclosed by Kantor because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan by improving the tracking of the items to be shipped and ensure an accurate inventory of the shipped items is maintained.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 in view of in view of Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10,163,071 and further in view of Kwan US Patent Application Publication 20080088450.
Regarding claim 7, Aljoe is silent on teaching deleting data stored in a physical memory of the first tracking object. Kwan in an analogous art teaches deleting data stored in a physical memory of the first tracking object (paragraph 04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan as disclosed by Kwan because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan by removing unwanted information from the RID tag and prepare the tag for use.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 in view of in view of Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10,163,071 and further in view of Koullias US Patent Application Publication 20170078368.
Regarding claim 8, Aljoe is silent on teaching scanning the first tracking object with a second reader and, in response, disassociating the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object. Koullias in an analogous art teaches disassociating the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object after the tracking object is been read (paragraph 074-075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan as disclosed by Koullias because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan by updating information regarding the tracking device and the object been tracked and prepare the tag for use.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 in view of Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 and further in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10163071.
Regarding claim 19, Feldenzer teaches a tracking object (RFID) comprising: an outer periphery bounding an internal volume (the chip packaging forms the outer periphery, the microchip is in the inner volume, col. 1 lines 13-17, col. 4 lines 14-18); and a tag (microchip) disposed within the internal volume, the tag configured to emit a signal comprising a unique identifier (col. 1 lines 13-17, col. 4 lines 14-18); wherein the tracking object is configured to be introduced into item processing equipment that processes a plurality of items (12,13,14,15,..) for delivery (col. 3 lines 22-38). Feldenzer teaches associating in a database the tracking object with the packages to be shipped such that a scan event for the tracking object corresponds to the items to be shipped to a status (the information regarding the items in the box is written to the RFID tag from the database and the RFID tag provides the tracking information for the box, col. 4 lines 7-22). Feldenzer is not explicit in teaching the sorting of plurality of objects into a bin. Aljoe in an analogous art teaches sorting, in item processing equipment, items of the plurality of items into a first bin of the item processing equipment and the items introduce for sorting is physically uncoupled from the articles in the bin (items are scanned and placed in a case according to destination, col. 3 lines 11-34). Aljoe teaches introducing a first tracking object (RFID label placed on case) into the item processing equipment, that is physically uncoupled from the items of the plurality of items; scanning the first tracking object with the sensor (col. 3 lines 14-20). Aljoe teaches after associating the first tracking object with the items of the plurality of items, transporting the first bin containing the first tracking object and the items of the plurality of items to a destination (the item is placed a labelled case 104 and transported to a destination withing the item processing equipment, col. 3 lines 11-344). The reference of Feldenzer teaches associating the tracking objects with the items without coupling the tracking object to the bin or to the items (col. 4 lines 7-22). Feldenzer in view of Aljoe is silent on teaching disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object. Quan in an analogous art teaches disassociating, in the database the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object (col. 21 lines 26-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Feldenzer as disclosed by Aljoe because such modification represents an improvement over the system Feldenzer by expanding the functionality of the sorting machine and allows objects to be group together. The modification disclosed by Quan reduces cost and provide for the easy attachment and removal of the tracking device to the object to be tracked.
Regarding claim 20, Feldenzer is silent on teaching the tracking object comprises a computer readable code on an exterior surface Aljoe in an analog art teaches the first tracking object comprises a computer readable code on an exterior surface (barcode, col. 3 lines 11-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Feldenzer as disclosed by Aljoe et al because such modification represent the substitution of one type of tracking device for another and producing the predictable result of providing tacking information.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljoe et al. US Patent 10745210 in view of in view of Feldenzer US Patent 7,679510 in view of Quan et al. US Patent 10,163,071 and further in view of Koullias US Patent Application Publication 20170078368.
Regarding claim 22, Aljoe is silent on teaching scanning the first tracking object with a second reader and, in response, disassociating the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object. Koullias in an analogous art teaches disassociating the first tracking object from the items of the plurality of items to facilitate reuse of the first tracking object after the tracking object is been read (paragraph 074-075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan as disclosed by Koullias because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Aljoe in view of Feldenzer in view of Quan by updating information regarding the tracking device and the object been tracked and prepare the tag for
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights