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 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.11,273,938 in view of Iino (US 2016/0346811) in view of Koselka et al. (US 2005/0126144).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant application can be arrived at from the claim limitations of cited US patent and US PGPUB. Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.11,273,938 discloses and/or suggests the product handling system with trays. US PGPUB 2016/0346811 discloses a robotic system that picks and sorts fruits and comprises an image detection device to sort standard and nonstandard fruits detected by the processor. US PGPUB 2005/0126144 discloses a mobile robot mechanical system with a variety of sensors, controllers, and machine-vision system for automating picking fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.11,273,938 with the mobile robotic system recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application because the use of automated robotic systems with machine vision capabilities improves the dispensing efficiency and accuracy of the dispensing system as a whole.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,730,698 in view of Iino (US 2016/0346811) in view of Koselka et al. (US 2005/0126144).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the instant application can be arrived at from the claim limitations of cited US patent and US PGPUB. Claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,730,698 discloses and/or suggests the product handling system with trays. US PGPUB 2016/0346811 discloses a robotic system that picks and sorts fruits and comprises an image detection device to sort standard and nonstandard fruits detected by the processor. US PGPUB 2005/0126144 discloses a mobile robot mechanical system with a variety of sensors, controllers, and machine-vision system for automating picking fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No.10,730,698 with the mobile robotic system recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application because the use of automated robotic systems with machine vision capabilities improves the dispensing efficiency and accuracy of the dispensing system as a whole.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elazary et al. (US 9,120,622).
Claim 14, Elazary discloses a product handling system comprising a first tray (C5:L5-10; bins retrieved from shelves; figs.4-5), in a population of trays, comprising a first set of supports (510,540,530) defining a first lane (fig.5; lane depicted inside bin) configured to transiently store a first row of product units; a first tray storage rack (fig.1) defining a first set of storage slots (fig.1), each storage slot in the first set of storage slots configured to transiently store a tray (tray/bin depicted in fig.5 are stored in the storage rack shelves) in the population of trays; and a controller (the automated robotic system inherently has a controller) configured to: detect a first trigger (autonomous robots are triggered to pulling customer order items; see abstract) to transfer product units transiently stored in the first tray (C5:L5-10; bins retrieved from shelves; figs.4-5); and in response to detecting the first trigger: trigger a tray conveyor (210) to: retrieve the first tray from a first storage slot, in the first set of storage slots, transiently storing the first tray; and locate the first tray in a product transfer station (robot moves fulfilled order to location within the distribution site where the articles are packaged; fig.8; 895).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights