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 .
Priority
This application is a Continuation of U.S. Application Ser. No. 18443,178, filed Feb. 15, 2024, now U.S. Patent 12,186,916, which is a Continuation of U.S. Application Ser. No. 18/220,412, filed Jul 11, 2023, now U.S. Patent 12,162,165, which is a Continuation of U.S. Application Ser. No. 17/881,475, filed August 4, 2022, now U.S. Patent 11,745,348.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,916. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application completely encompass the claims of the patent. One could not make or use the invention recited in claims 12-16 and 19 of the patent without infringing upon the claims of this application. Claims 14 of the patent aligns with claims 1 and 4 of this application; claim 19 also aligns with claim 1; claim 15 aligns with claim 2; and claim 16 aligns with claim 3.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (US 2020/0286192).
Regarding independent claim 1, Roy discloses a system comprising: a frame (1) defining a frontal plane, a sagittal plane, a first end (bottom), and a second end (top) opposite the first end across the frontal plane, an intersection of the frontal plane and the sagittal plane defining a reference axis; a plurality of sensors, comprising: a first scale (18) and a second scale (19) opposite the first scale across the sagittal plane, the first and second scales configured to support a first bin and a second bin, respectively; a first camera (14) mounted to the frame above the first scale; a second camera (15) mounted to the frame above the second scale and opposite the first camera across the sagittal plane; and a third camera (16) mounted at the second end of the frame; and a robot arm (12), comprising at least three degrees-of freedom (DOF) mounted to the frame above the first and second scales with a base joint of the robot arm mounted at an incline relative to the reference axis.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 3, Roy discloses that The first and second scales are mounted to the frame. The frontal plane intersects the first camera and the second camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US 2020/0286192) in view of Ottitsch et al. (US 2020/0394603). Roy discloses a system comprising: a frame (1) defining a frontal plane, a sagittal plane, a first end (bottom), and a second end (top) opposite the first end across the frontal plane, an intersection of the frontal plane and the sagittal plane defining a reference axis; a plurality of sensors, comprising: a first scale (18) and a second scale (19) opposite the first scale across the sagittal plane, the first and second scales configured to support a first bin and a second bin, respectively; a first camera (14) mounted to the frame above the first scale; a second camera (15) mounted to the frame above the second scale and opposite the first camera across the sagittal plane; and a third camera (16) mounted at the second end of the frame; and a robot arm (12), comprising at least three degrees-of freedom (DOF) mounted to the frame above the first and second scales with a base joint of the robot arm mounted at an incline relative to the reference axis. Roy discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the third camera is a set of cameras wherein the set of cameras comprises a stereo-camera pair. However, Ottitsch discloses a similar device which includes a camera (100) which is a set of cameras which are a stereo-camera pair (see para. 0376) for the purpose of determining the space-time coordinates of bins. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Roy by having the third camera include a set of cameras wherein the set of cameras comprises a stereo-camera pair, as disclosed by Ottitsch, for the purpose of determining the space-time coordinates of the bins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oleynik (US 2021/0069910) and Buehlet (US 2013/0101714) disclose similar food preparation systems which include robot arms and cameras.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights