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 11/14/24, and the Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s Second Preliminary Amendment, filed on 02/13/25, have been entered.
According to the Second Preliminary Amendment, claims 1-26 were pending but have been canceled. New claims 27-46 have been added and are now 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 27, 31, 34 38, 41, and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,633. 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 disclosed by the subject matter in the reference as shown in the table below.
The mapping of the claims at issue to the corresponding claims of US Patent No. 11,472,633 is as follows:
Instant Application
Reference
27. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, the system comprising: an input conveyor providing a stream of objects; the input conveyor terminating at a presentation area, wherein the presentation area accumulates a plurality of objects from the stream of objects; a perception system including a plurality of perception units continuously monitoring the presentation area to isolate and track each of the accumulated plurality of objects; a manual workstation adjacent the presentation area, the manual workstation including a person to select any one of the accumulated plurality of objects in the presentation area, the perception system determining an identification of the selected object; a feedback device proximate to the manual workstation providing a visual indication to the person regarding the status of an identification of the selected object; and a processing system adjacent the manual workstation, the processing system including a transport system, the transport system adapted to receive the selected object from the person at the manual workstation and move the selected object to a destination responsive to the identification.
1. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, said semi-autonomous processing system comprising: an input conveyance system for moving objects to a presentation area; a perception system including perception units that are directed toward a detection area for providing perception data regarding an object in the presentation area; at least two transport systems, each of which is adapted to receive the object and move the object in either of reciprocal directions; and a manual workstation area including a movable chair arranged between the detection area and the at least two transport systems, wherein the movable chair is actively moved to turn toward a designated chute that leads to one of the at least two transport systems responsive to the perception data from at least one of the perception units that is representative of an identity of the object.
31. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 27, wherein the perception units include a depth detection sensor.
4. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the perception system includes a depth detection system.
34. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, the system comprising: an input conveyor providing a stream of objects; the input conveyor terminating at a presentation area, wherein the presentation area accumulates a plurality of objects from the stream of objects; a perception system including a plurality of perception units continuously monitoring the presentation area to isolate and track each of the accumulated plurality of objects; a manual workstation adjacent the presentation area, the manual workstation including a person to select any one of the accumulated plurality of objects in the presentation area and remove the selected object from the presentation area, the perception system determining an identification of the selected object; a feedback device proximate to the manual workstation providing an instruction to the person regarding the identification of the selected object; and the instruction including a destination of the selected object.
1. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, said semi-autonomous processing system comprising: an input conveyance system for moving objects to a presentation area; a perception system including perception units that are directed toward a detection area for providing perception data regarding an object in the presentation area; at least two transport systems, each of which is adapted to receive the object and move the object in either of reciprocal directions; and a manual workstation area including a movable chair arranged between the detection area and the at least two transport systems, wherein the movable chair is actively moved to turn toward a designated chute that leads to one of the at least two transport systems responsive to the perception data from at least one of the perception units that is representative of an identity of the object.
38. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 34, wherein the perception units include a depth detection sensor.
4. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the perception system includes a depth detection system.
41. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, the system comprising: an input conveyor providing a stream of objects; the input conveyor terminating at a presentation area, wherein the presentation area accumulates a plurality of objects from the stream of objects; a perception system including a plurality of perception units continuously monitoring the presentation area to isolate and track each of the accumulated plurality of objects; a manual workstation adjacent the presentation area, the manual workstation including a person to select and grasp any one of the accumulated plurality of objects in the presentation area, the perception system determining an identification of the selected object; a feedback device proximate to the manual workstation providing an instruction to the person regarding the identification of the selected object, wherein the instruction includes at least one of a rotation and reorientation of the selected object; and a processing system adjacent the manual workstation, the processing system including a transport system, the transport system adapted to receive the selected object from the person at the manual workstation and move the selected object to a destination responsive to the identification.
1. A semi-autonomous processing system for processing objects, said semi-autonomous processing system comprising: an input conveyance system for moving objects to a presentation area; a perception system including perception units that are directed toward a detection area for providing perception data regarding an object in the presentation area; at least two transport systems, each of which is adapted to receive the object and move the object in either of reciprocal directions; and a manual workstation area including a movable chair arranged between the detection area and the at least two transport systems, wherein the movable chair is actively moved to turn toward a designated chute that leads to one of the at least two transport systems responsive to the perception data from at least one of the perception units that is representative of an identity of the object.
45. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 41, wherein the perception units include a depth detection sensor.
4. The semi-autonomous processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the perception system includes a depth detection system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human being which is not eligible patent subject matter. See Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101); see also MPEP §2105. Specifically, claim 27 is on a semi-autonomous processing system and recites, part, “a manual workstation adjacent the presentation area, the manual workstation including a person to select any one of the accumulated plurality of objects in the presentation area.” Claim 27 encompasses a human being. Accordingly, claim 27 is directed to ineligible patent subject matter under §101 as well as claims 28-33 which depend therefrom. The Applicant may amend the claims in any manner so as to exclude persons from the claimed invention.
For the aforementioned reasons, claims 34 and 41 are patent subject matter ineligible as well as claims 35-40 and 42-46 dependent therefrom.
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under §112(f), because the claim limitation(s) use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a plurality of perception units” in claims 27, 34, and 41; “feedback device” in claims 27, 34, and 41; and “a transport system” in claims 27 and 41.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under §112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Accordingly, the “feedback device” is interpreted as any audio/visual indicator device. See ¶¶ [0044] & [0048] (providing a feedback device such as a light or a speaker, a display screen, video projector, auditory cue, or some combination thereof).
If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under §112(f), the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under §112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being subject to means-plus-function treatment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 27-46 are rejected under §112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 27 recites “a plurality of perception units continuously monitoring the presentation area to isolate and track each of the accumulated plurality of objects.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the specified function. See ¶¶ [0045-0047] (providing an identification system including a depth detection system and a plurality of perception units, each perception unit configured to perceive identifying indicia of an object within view of the perception unit).
Secondly, claim 27 further recites “the transport system adapted to receive the selected object from the person at the manual workstation and move the selected object to a destination responsive to the identification.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the specified function. See ¶¶ [0011] & [0043] (providing a primary transport system and a secondary transport system, each of which is adapted to receive and move objects).
Accordingly, claim 27 is indefinite under §112(b) in view of the “plurality of perception units” and the “transport system” as interpreted in accordance with §112(f). Claims 28-33 are indefinite under §112(b) as they depend from claim 27.
For one or more of the aforementioned reasons, independent claims 34 and 41 are indefinite under §112(b) as well as claims 35-40 and 42-46 which depend therefrom.
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pat. No. 6,208,908 to Boyd et al. discloses an integrated order selection and distribution system for selecting and delivering a plurality of articles associated with a preselected customer order. The system includes discrete article receptacles, a conveyor, and a plurality of pack stations. The receptacles releasably retain articles associated with a preselected customer order. Each receptacle is transported to predetermined locations within the system by the conveyor. The pack stations are arranged along the direction of movement of the conveyor to receive the articles to be discharged from the receptacles. A system controller tracks the location of the receptacles in the system and generates a signal that causes each receptacle to discharge its articles at a predetermined location, relative to the pack stations.
US Pub. No. 2017/0349385 to Moroni et al. discloses a device for feeding items to a sorting machine, including: a conveyor plane for feeding items or parcels along an advancement direction; an optical detection device, to allow the acquisition, while the items are in motion on the conveyor plane of the three-dimensional coordinates of a determined number of points on the surface of the items and to organize them into coordinate vectors; a manipulator provided to pick the items from the conveyor plane and to place the items picked in a desired position; a control system, provided to process, for each item in motion on the conveyor plane, the coordinate vectors in order to obtain a three-dimensional representation of the item, including the information based on which the control system handles the manipulator for picking and placing the items.
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
