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 .
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.
Background
The Amendments to the Specification in the Applicant’s First Preliminary Amendment, filed on 10/24/24, and the Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Second Preliminary Amendment, filed on 02/26/25, have been entered.
According to the Second Preliminary Amendment, claims 1-21 were pending but have been canceled. New claims 22-41 have been added and are currently pending.
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 22, 29, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,255 ( Patent ‘255). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claimed invention is fully disclosed by the subject matter in the reference as shown in the table below.
Claims 23-27, 30-34, and 37-40 do not contain any limitations in combination with any limitations to which they may refer rendering the claim nonobvious.
The mapping of independent claims 22, 29, and 36 in the present application to claim 17 of Patent ‘255 is as follows:
Instant Application
Reference
22. An automated carrier system for moving objects to be processed within an object processing system, the automated carrier system comprising: (1) an automated carrier including a base structure on which any one of an object of the objects to be processed is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; (2) an array of discontinuous track sections within the object processing system, each of the array of discontinuous track sections including a raised square with rounded edges with a spacing between each of the array of discontinuous track sections being less than at least one of the length and the width, the object processing system including a plurality of discrete locations, each of the plurality of discrete locations including an associated discontinuous track section of the array of discontinuous track sections; and (3) a control system providing signals to the automated carrier to direct a movement between the discrete locations using the array of discontinuous track sections.
17. An object processing system for processing objects, said object processing system comprising: (2) a discontinuous track system that includes a plurality of track elements; (1) a plurality of automated carriers on the discontinuous track system that includes the plurality of track elements; and (3) a control system for providing commands to each of the plurality of automated carriers to move the plurality of automated carriers a plurality of respective limited number of track elements that are each short of any final destination for each automated carrier; wherein the commands provided by the control system to each automated carrier includes commands to leave an associated first track element of the plurality of track elements and approach an associated second track element of the plurality of track elements, and wherein the associated first track element and the associated second track element are not contiguous.
29. An automated carrier system for moving objects to be processed within an object processing system, the automated carrier system comprising: (1) an automated carrier including a base structure on which any one of an object of the objects to be processed is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; and (2) a flooring tile installed within the object processing system, the flooring tile providing an array of track sections, each of the track sections including a raised square with rounded edges with a regular spacing between each of the track sections being less than at least one of the length and the width.
17. An object processing system for processing objects, said object processing system comprising: (2) a discontinuous track system that includes a plurality of track elements; [and] (1) a plurality of automated carriers on the discontinuous track system that includes the plurality of track elements … wherein the associated first track element and the associated second track element are not contiguous.
36. An object processing system within a location including a contiguous floorplan, the object processing system comprising: (1) a plurality of discrete processing locations; (2) an automated carrier including a base structure on which an object is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; (1) an array of track sections applied to the contiguous floorplan, each of the track sections including a raised outline engaging with at least one of the pivotally supported wheelsets, the array of track sections including a regular spacing of less than at least one of the length and the width; and (3) a control system providing signals to the automated carrier to move between the discrete locations using the array of track sections.
17. An object processing system for processing objects, said object processing system comprising: (1) a discontinuous track system that includes a plurality of track elements; (2) a plurality of automated carriers on the discontinuous track system that includes the plurality of track elements; and (3) a control system for providing commands to each of the plurality of automated carriers to move the plurality of automated carriers a plurality of respective limited number of track elements that are each short of any final destination for each automated carrier; wherein the commands provided by the control system to each automated carrier includes commands to leave an associated first track element of the plurality of track elements and approach an associated second track element of the plurality of track elements, and (1) wherein the associated first track element and the associated second track element are not contiguous.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 29, and 36 would be allowable if a timely terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and the claims were rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 28, 35, and 41 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: independent claim 22 is on an automated carrier system for moving objects to be processed within an object processing system and recites, in part, “an automated carrier including a base structure on which any one of an object of the objects to be processed is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; an array of discontinuous track sections within the object processing system, each of the array of discontinuous track sections including a raised square with rounded edges with a spacing between each of the array of discontinuous track sections being less than at least one of the length and the width, the object processing system including a plurality of discrete locations, each of the plurality of discrete locations including an associated discontinuous track section of the array of discontinuous track sections; and a control system providing signals to the automated carrier to direct a movement between the discrete locations using the array of discontinuous track sections.” The combination of these limitations was not found in the prior art when considering the claim as a whole. Thus, claim 22 is allowable as claims 23-28 depending therefrom.
Similarly, independent claim 29 is on an automated carrier system for moving objects to be processed within an object processing system and recites, in part, “an automated carrier including a base structure on which any one of an object of the objects to be processed is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; and a flooring tile installed within the object processing system, the flooring tile providing an array of track sections, each of the track sections including a raised square with rounded edges with a regular spacing between each of the track sections being less than at least one of the length and the width.” The combination of these limitations was not found in the prior art when considering the claim as a whole. Thus, claim 29 is allowable as claims 30-35 depending therefrom.
Finally, independent claim 36 is on an object processing system within a location including a contiguous floorplan and recites, in part, “a plurality of discrete processing locations; an automated carrier including a base structure on which an object is placed, and at least two wheel assemblies pivotally supported on the base structure, the automated carrier including a length and a width; an array of track sections applied to the contiguous floorplan, each of the track sections including a raised outline engaging with at least one of the pivotally supported wheelsets, the array of track sections including a regular spacing of less than at least one of the length and the width; and a control system providing signals to the automated carrier to move between the discrete locations using the array of track sections.” The combination of these limitations was not found in the prior art when considering the claim as a whole. Thus, claim 36 is allowable as claims 37-41 depending therefrom.
US Pub. No. 2012/0128454 to Hayduchok et al. is considered the closet prior art to the subject matter of the claimed invention. Hayduchok et al. discloses system for sorting or retrieving items to/from a plurality of destinations areas. The items are loaded onto one of a plurality of independently controlled delivery vehicles. The delivery vehicles follow a track that guides the delivery vehicles to/from the destination areas, which are positioned along the track. Once at the appropriate destination area, an item is transferred between the delivery vehicle and the destination area. However, Hayduchok et al. does not teach a control system configured to control the movement of automated carriers between discrete locations using the array of discontinuous track sections wherein each section includes a raised square outline and regular spacing between each of the track sections as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached on (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
