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 .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final is in response to applicant’s original filing of 18 July 2024. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
Claims1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending US Application No. 17/336,516.
The examiner notes that the current application was filed as a divisional application under 35 USC 121 based on a Requirement for Restriction issued in copending application 17/336,516. However, before close of prosecution in copending application 17/336,516, withdrawn claims 1-10 were rejoined to the application and amended in an examiner’s amendment in a notice of allowance (which as of the date of writing of this Office Action has not been mailed by the office). As such, pursuant to MPEP 804.01, there is no prohibition against a nonstatutory double patenting rejection under 35 USC 121 because:
(E) The requirement for restriction was withdrawn, in its entirety or in pertinent part, by the examiner before the patent issues. With the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, the non-elected claims that are no longer withdrawn from consideration become subject to examination. "The restriction requirement disappears; it is as though it had not been made. With the disappearance of the restriction requirement, the need for a divisional application and the need for the [double patenting] prohibition also disappear."In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 132 (CCPA 1971). Note that a restriction requirement in an earlier-filed application does not carry over to claims of a continuation application in which the examiner does not reinstate or refer to the restriction requirement in the parent application. Reliance on a patent issued from such a continuation application to reject claims in a later-filed divisional application is not prohibited under 35 U.S.C. 121. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Pharmachemie BV, 361 F.3d 1343, 1348, 70 USPQ2d 1097, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As such, the claims of the present application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending US Application No. 17/336,516. The Examiner notes that the rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is provisional here because the claims of the copending application 17/336,516 have not issued (though the claims have been indicated to be allowable).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of claims 1-17 of the present application can be mapped directly to a limitation of claims 1-17 of copending application 17/336,516, as the present claims are broader than the claims of copending application 17/336,516 but cover similar subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting set forth in this Office action.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, no prior art of record, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or render obvious, in the context of the remaining limitations of the claims: issuing a command to a navigation system of a vehicle to direct a vehicle mover of the vehicle to move the vehicle to the location of the pallet in the pallet location space; using a multidimensional physical space sensor of the vehicle to generate a perception sensor point data cloud; using space generation software resident in a processor of a command system, which is operatively in communication with the vehicle mover and a forklift fork positioner of the vehicle, to segment the pallet from pallet cloud data derived from the perception sensor point data cloud and to generate a segmented load; feeding the segmented load into a predetermined set of algorithms useful to identify the set of pallet pockets, the identification of the set of pallet pockets comprising a determination of a center position for each pallet pocket of the set of pallet pockets; and using vehicle command software resident in the processor and operatively in communication a vehicle controller of the vehicle to: direct the vehicle towards the pallet in the pallet location space and track the vehicle as it approaches the pallet in the pallet location space; provide the center position of the set of pallet pockets to the vehicle controller to guide the vehicle towards the pallet until the set of vehicle forklift forks are received into the set of pallet pockets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights