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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,006,758. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely recite like structural elements including an alignment receptacle having sidewalls with first and second apertures, a first push unit and a second push unit moving along first and second axes and pushing document edges through the sidewall apertures, simply utilizing method phrasing, rather than product claim recitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. Pending resolution of the double patenting rejection set forth above, the claims would be allowable.
As recited in Claim 1, the prior art of record US 5,327,206, JP2006248772 and JP 2006062877 all disclose a document handling and transportation method for use in a casino counting room environment, comprising: configuring an alignment receptacle (for ex, US 5,327,206, Figs. 5, 13 – receptacle tray 121) to receive and position a stack of cashbox documents (S), the alignment receptacle defining at least a first aperture (Figs. 19-22; 121c in tray bottom 121) in a first alignment receptacle sidewall and a second aperture (Figs. 19-22; 121b in tray bottom 121) in a second alignment receptacle sidewall; configuring a first push unit (128) to move and push on a first edge of the stack of cashbox documents in the alignment receptacle through the first aperture, thereby aligning at least a first edge of each document in the stack of cashbox documents with one another; configuring a second push unit (125) to move and push on a second edge of the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the alignment receptacle through the second aperture thereby aligning at least a second edge of each document in the stack of cashbox documents with one another without substantially misaligning the first edge of each of the documents resulting in documents aligned along the first edge and the second edge.
The prior art of record fails to teach the italicized portion of the claim shown above, wherein the apertures are defined in side walls of the receptacle, rather than the prior art disclosed bottom tray. Accordingly claim 1 defines over the prior art of record.
Similarly, claim 8 also defines over the prior art of record, reciting a document handling and transportation method for use in a casino counting room environment, comprising: forming a receptacle to receive a stack of cashbox documents by: positioning a set of sidewalls on a base that defines a first aperture in a first middle of a first sidewall of the set of sidewalls extending from a top of the first sidewall to the base and a second aperture in a second middle of a second sidewall of the set of sidewalls extending from a top of the second sidewall to the base; configuring at least one movement mechanism to move the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the receptacle; and configuring at least one alignment mechanism to align the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the receptacle by pushing on: a first edge of the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the receptacle through the first aperture; and a second edge of the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the receptacle through the second aperture thereby aligning documents along the first edge and the second edge.
And similarly, Claim 15 defines over the prior art of record, reciting a document handling and transportation method for use in a casino counting room environment, comprising: configuring a moveable receptacle to receive a stack of cashbox documents, the moveable receptacle including at least one sidewall that defines at least one aperture; and configuring at least one alignment mechanism to align the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the moveable receptacle by pushing on: a first edge of the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the moveable receptacle through the at least one aperture; and a second edge of the stack of cashbox documents positioned in the moveable receptacle through the at least one aperture, the second side perpendicular to the first side.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 define over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the cited similar alignment mechanisms for sheet receptacle trays utilizing bottom tray apertures for the alignment push units which are configured to push on side edges of the sheets, see US 5,327,206, JP2006248772 and JP 2006062877.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675