DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. 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 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,943287 B1, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,645,698 B2, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,301,691 B2, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,367,124 B2, claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,847,688 B2, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,537 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Reasons for Allowability Over the Prior Art
The prior art includes MacIntosh, US PG Pub 2014/0029339 A1, which teaches methods and arrangements for identifying objects. MacIntosh teaches identifying objects/people entirely within the pixel domain of an image but does not relate that to an overlap region with a second sensor. MacIntosh teaches a weight sensor, i.e. second sensor, on a physical shopping cart but does not teach to determine the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor based at least in part upon the first pixel location; and in response to determining that the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor identify the object identifier for the object from the first tracking list; and store the object identifier for the object in the second tracking list.
The prior art includes Kobres et al., US PG Pub 2015/0029339 A1, which teaches a whole store scanner, but does not teach to determine the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor based at least in part upon the first pixel location; and in response to determining that the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor identify the object identifier for the object from the first tracking list; and store the object identifier for the object in the second tracking list.
The prior art includes Meyer, US PG Pub 2014/0201042 A1, which teaches an inventory control system including a weight sensor disposed on a shelf of the rack, wherein the weight sensor is configured to measure a weight for items on the weight sensor, but does not determine the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor based at least in part upon the first pixel location; and in response to determining that the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor identify the object identifier for the object from the first tracking list; and store the object identifier for the object in the second tracking list.
Non-patent literature Mumani, Ahmad, Richard Stone, and Zhonglun Wang teaches the effect of scanning technology and UPC placement on supermarket self‐checkout but does not teach to determine the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor based at least in part upon the first pixel location; and in response to determining that the object is within the overlap region with the second sensor identify the object identifier for the object from the first tracking list; and store the object identifier for the object in the second tracking list.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights