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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 212, 2026 lists four foreign patent documents that were previously cited and provided by the Applicant and/or the Office. Thus, they have been crossed-out of the information disclosure statement.
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 11, 13, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-14 of co-pending Application No. 19/277,959 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 of ‘959 discloses a mecanum wheel comprised of a first wheel frame, a plurality of first mounting mechanisms, a second wheel frame, a plurality of second mounting mechanisms, a plurality of roller units with roller surfaces and a central region, axles having a first end connected to one of the first mounting mechanisms of the first wheel frame and having a second end connected to the corresponding second mounting mechanisms of the second wheel frame, the first end of each axle includes an angled tip portion with a substantially flat surface (claim 11), and that each first mounting mechanism includes an elastic compression piece having a first surface disposed on the substantially flat surface of the angled tip portion of the first end of the axle (claim 12). While ‘959 does not use the phrase “hollow central cavity”, claim 1 of ‘959 discloses that the axle is disposed in the central region and the axle extends through the central region thus the central region must be hollow for the axle to pass through it.
Claim 13 of ‘959 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 13.
Claim 14 of ‘959 discloses all of the claim limitations of current claim 14.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that Application 19/227,959 does not share common ownership with the current application is correct because the correct Application number is 19/277,959. Both the current application and Application 19/277,959 are assigned to Locus Robotics Corp. A new double patenting rejection has been provided above with the correct reference application number.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 12 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under a double patenting rejection thus their allowability would be determined based on Applicant's response to the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
