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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-20, in the reply filed on 10 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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 12-14, 19 and 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:
In claim 12, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the auto-load mode of operation”. It appears that claim 12 should depend from claim 11 to provide such antecedent basis.
In claim 19, the limitation “the event is a visual cue, wherein the visual cue comprises at least one of a sign, a symbol, and a hand gesture”, contradicts parent claim 11 which requires “the event detected by the sensor is a threshold location of the mixer vehicle, the threshold location being a concrete plant”.
Claim 20, in addition to being indefinite for depending from indefinite claim 19, recites the unclear phrase “wherein the event wherein the autonomous control system generates a first output based on a first hand gesture” and further contradicts parent claim 11.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. While, as explained above, it is unclear what is being claimed, the claims have been considered with regarding to the description requirement to the extent possible. In the original parent application, of which this applicant is a continuation and therefore adding new matter is prohibited, there is not description of the event being both “a visual cue, wherein the visual cue comprises at least one of a sign, a symbol, and a hand gesture” and “a threshold location of the mixer vehicle, the threshold location being a concrete plant”. Instead, these are described as alternatives.
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.
Claims 10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datema et al. (US 2019/0121353):
Regarding claim 10, Datema discloses a mixer vehicle system, comprising a mixer vehicle (10), comprising: a chassis (12) supporting a plurality of wheels (16); and a vehicle body supported by the chassis, wherein the vehicle body comprises a plurality of subcomponents, the plurality of subcomponents comprising: a mixing drum (52) defining an aperture (see [0026]) and an internal volume, wherein the mixing drum is movable (see [0025] and [0026]) relative to the chassis to agitate mixture ingredients stored in the mixing drum; a charge hopper (56) positioned proximate the aperture, wherein the charge hopper is movable relative to the aperture; and a chute (58) positioned proximate the aperture, beneath the charge hopper, wherein the chute is pivotally coupled (see [0026]) to the mixer vehicle; and an autonomous control system configured to automate at least one operation of the mixer vehicle, the autonomous control system comprising: a sensor (204) configured to detect an event and generate an input signal indicating the event; and a controller (160) communicably coupled with the sensor, the controller configured to receive the input signal generated by the sensor and generate an output responsive to receipt of the input signal (see Fig. 9), the output comprising the at least one operation of the mixer vehicle, wherein the at least one operation of the mixer vehicle comprises at least one of: (i) moving at least one of the plurality of subcomponents of the mixer vehicle to a desired position; (ii) activating or deactivating at least one mode of operation of the mixer vehicle; and (iii) providing an alert to an operator of the mixer vehicle (see Fig. 9; [0039]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 15, the controller comprises an input component (from 170, 190 and 200), a program component (166), and a processing component (164).
Regarding claim 16, a device (200) wherein the device is communicably coupled with the controller; wherein the controller is configured to receive instruction from the device via the program component (see Fig. 9). The instructions themselves are not a required element of the claimed structure.
Claim 17 only recites an optional “can” limitation.
Regarding claim 18, second sensor (180) detects a signal from the chassis to automatically activates the autonomous control system (see [0042] and [0044]).
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 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,969. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the pending claims are disclosed or suggested by the issued claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection was overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Claims 12-14 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection was overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer and antecedent basis were provided for “the auto-load mode of operation” by making claim 12 depend form claim 11 as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774