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 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,361. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims is substantially similar and recites similar limitations. It is because the claims in the continuation application are broader than the ones in the patent application, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982).
For example, claim 1 of the present application recites the steps which are similar to the patented claim 1. Furthermore, the cited patent has more limitations, thereby encompassing the present application's limitations.
Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than claim 1 of the patented application.
The prior art does not appear to teach or make obvious the subject matter of the claims.
However, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection must be overcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach the claimed invention having the following limitations, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 22, the closest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having “a processor programmed to process the image captured by the detector based on the reference data sets, in order to derive a diagnostic indication regarding a defectiveness of the cap, so that the diagnostic indication distinguishes between a with-defect typology of objects and a defect-free typology of objects, the processing unit being trained, by the self-learning system, through samples of objects of the defect-free typology, wherein the processing unit is configured to: process the image captured by the detector based on the reference data sets, in order to derive from the image values of a plurality of image features; process the values of the plurality of image features to derive the diagnostic indication regarding the defectiveness of the cap; generate an image reconstructed from the values of the plurality of image features and based on the reference data sets; deriving the diagnostic indication regarding the defectiveness of the cap as a function of comparing the image captured by the detector with the reconstructed image”, and a combination of other limitations thereof as recited in the claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, 18-21, and 23, the claims have been found allowable due to its dependencies to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights