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 .
DETAILED 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, 6, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,419. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
19/037,848 (Claim 1) USP 11,679,419 (Claims 1 and 7)
A system, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
A system, comprising: a first sorting device configured to: process a first instruction, from a first sorting control device, to remove a first target item from a set of items traveling along a first conveyor device, wherein the first sorting device, the first sorting control device, and the first conveyor device are associated with a first sorting unit
receive sensed data associated with a set of items on a conveyor device within a sorting facility
(Claim 7)
obtain sensed data associated with the set of items on the first conveyor device; determine that the first target item is to be targeted by the first sorting device based at least in part on the sensed data and the set of target item criteria; and send the first instruction to the first sorting device
determine a target item and a non-target item from the set of items based at least in part on the sensed data and a set of target item criteria associated with a first sorting device
wherein the first target item and a second target item were determined by the first sorting control device to match a set of target item criteria
determine that the first sorting device is to suppress performing a sorting action on the target item based at least in part on a set of suppression criteria associated with the first sorting device and an attribute of the non-target item
wherein sorting of the second target item by the first sorting device was determined to be suppressed by the first sorting control device based at least in part on a set of suppression criteria; and in response to the first instruction, perform a first sorting action to remove the first target item from the set of items and omit performing a second sorting action to remove the second target item from the set of items, wherein the set of items excluding at least the first target item is to be transported towards a second sorting device via a second conveyor device
send an instruction to cause a second sorting device to perform the sorting action on the target item, wherein the target item is transported by the conveyor device towards the second sorting device
and wherein the second sorting device, a second sorting control device, and the second conveyor device are associated with a second sorting unit; wherein the second sorting control device is configured to receive, from the first sorting control device associated with the first sorting unit, a determination that the second target item was not sorted by the first sorting device and should be targeted for sorting by the second sorting device
the second sorting device configured to perform the sorting action on the target item, wherein the second sorting device is located downstream of the first sorting device within the sorting facility
and wherein the second sorting device is configured to perform a third sorting action to remove the second target item from the set of items excluding at least the first target item in response to receiving a second instruction from the second sorting control device
19/037,848 (Claim 16) USP 11,679,419 (Claims 18 and 19)
A method, comprising
A method, comprising: processing, at a first sorting device, a first instruction from a first sorting control device to remove a first target item from a set of items traveling along a first conveyor device, wherein the first sorting device, the first sorting control device, and the first conveyor device are associated with a first sorting unit
receiving sensed data associated with a set of items on a conveyor device within a sorting facility
(Claim 19)
obtaining sensed data associated with the set of items on the first conveyor device; determining that the first target item is to be targeted by the first sorting device based at least in part on the sensed data and the set of target item criteria; and sending the first instruction to the first sorting device
determining a target item and a non-target item from the set of items based at least in part on the sensed data and a set of target item criteria associated with a first sorting device
wherein the first target item and a second target item were determined by the first sorting control device to match a set of target item criteria, wherein sorting of the second target item by the first sorting device was determined to be suppressed by the first sorting control device based at least in part on a set of suppression criteria
determining that the first sorting device is to suppress performing a sorting action on the target item based at least in part on a set of suppression criteria associated with the first sorting device and an attribute of the non-target item
and in response to the first instruction, performing a first sorting action to remove the first target item from the set of items and omitting to perform a second sorting action to remove the second target item from the set of items, wherein the set of items excluding at least the first target item is to be transported towards a second sorting device via a second conveyor device
sending an instruction to cause a second sorting device to perform the sorting action on io the target item, wherein the target item is transported by the conveyor device towards the second sorting device, wherein the second sorting device is configured to perform the sorting action on the target item, wherein the second sorting device is located downstream of the first sorting device within the sorting facility
and wherein the second sorting device, a second sorting control device, and the second conveyor device are associated with a second sorting unit; wherein the second sorting control device is configured to receive, from the first sorting control device associated with the first sorting unit, a determination that the second target item was not sorted by the first sorting device and should be targeted for sorting by the second sorting device; and wherein the second sorting device is configured to perform a third sorting action to remove the second target item from the set of items excluding at least the first target item in response to receiving a second instruction from the second sorting control device
Claims 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,419 in view of Kumar et al (US Pub 2019/0247891 A1).
Regarding claim 2, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Kumar teaches the sensed data is received from an object recognition device (paragraph 0055) for the purpose of tracking each of the pieces as they travel on the conveyor belt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of tracking each of the pieces as they travel on the conveyor belt.
Regarding claim 10, ‘419 discloses the determination that the first sorting device is to suppress performing a sorting action (Claim 1 and 7), but ‘419 does not disclose the one or more processors are configured to store the determination information related to sorting materials. Kumar teaches the one or more processors are configured to store the determination information related to sorting materials (paragraph 0075) for the purpose of assigning classification based on previous comparisons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of assigning classification based on previous comparisons.
Regarding claim 11, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Kumar teaches the second sorting device using a sorting mechanism that is comprises an array of air orifices, wherein the array of air orifices perform the sorting action by shooting air on the target item (element 1620) for the purpose of sorting a group of materials that include heterogeneous mixture into its constituent materials (paragraphs 0079-0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of sorting a group of materials that include heterogeneous mixture into its constituent materials.
Regarding claim 14, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Kumar teaches the conveyor device comprises a first conveyor device arranged with a second conveyor device in a sorting line, and wherein the target item is to fall off the first conveyor device and land on the second conveyor device, wherein the second conveyor device is configured to transport the target item to the second sorting device (see Fig. 16A and paragraph 0113) for the purpose of sorting a group of materials that include heterogeneous mixture into its constituent materials (paragraphs 0079-0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of sorting a group of materials that include heterogeneous mixture into its constituent materials.
Regarding claim 15, 419 'in view of Kumar does not explicitly disclose the first conveyor device and the second conveyor device each form an angle between 5 through 15 degrees relative to the plane. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to conveyor items at an incline because Applicant has not disclosed that 5 to 15 degree angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected 419' in view of Kumar, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well with either conveyor inclination because both inclinations would perform the same function of conveying items at an incline for the purpose of sorting a group of materials that include a heterogeneous mixture into its constituent materials.
Claims 3-7, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,419 in view of Horowitz et al (US Pub 2019/0030571 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the target item matches the set of target item criteria and the non-target item does not match the set of target item criteria (paragraph 0023) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 4, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the one or more processors are configured to: detect an event; and in response to the event, update the set of target item criteria (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 5, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the event comprises one or more of the following: data detected by one or more sensors, a user input, a measured metric associated with recovered items, and a received metric that is received from an external source (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 6, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the one or more processors are configured to: detect an event; and in response to the event, update the set of suppression criteria (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the event comprises one or more of the following: data detected by one or more sensors, a user input, a measured metric associated with recovered items, and a received metric that is received from an external source (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the second sorting device using a sorting mechanism that comprises one or more pushing mechanisms that are configured to perform the sorting action by striking the target item (see Fig. 3; element 80) for the purpose of providing mechanical pushing of the target item. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of providing mechanical pushing of the target item.
Regarding claim 17, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches detecting an event; and in response to the event, updating the set of target item criteria (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 18, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the event comprises one or more of the following: data detected by one or more sensors, a user input, a measured metric associated with recovered items, and a received metric that is received from an external source (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches detecting an event; and in response to the event, updating the set of suppression criteria (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Regarding claim 20, ‘419 does not disclose the claim limitations. Horowitz teaches the event comprises one or more of the following: data detected by one or more sensors, a user input, a measured metric associated with recovered items, and a received metric that is received from an external source (paragraph 0034) for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘419, as taught by Horowitz, for the purpose of controlling the operation of a sorting mechanism.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a system with a first and second sorting device. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious the set of suppression criteria describes that the sorting action on the target item should be suppressed if the non-target item is located within a predetermined distance from the target item in claim 8.
The closest prior art discloses a system with a first and second sorting device. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious the set of suppression criteria describes that the sorting action on the target item should be suppressed if a size of the non-target item is greater than a predetermined size in claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653