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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 13 March 2024, 25 June 2024, and 9 July 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12315156, 10853938, 11763448, and 10679342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate various user interfaces, improving user situational awareness.
Claims 3-4, 6, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10853938. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to use the disposable, grooved, and barcode scannable containers in various applications.
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11568537. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to use the indicating and absorbent container in various applications.
Examiner notes that the limitation of claims 1-2, 10-11, and 19 are not disclosed in the claims of previous patents listed above but are found in at least the specification. However, no disclosure of these limitations can be found in the Provisional Application 62/047325.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, 13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan (US 2010/0019042 A1) in view of Conley et al. (US 2009/0078606 A1) and Bachmann (US 5220970 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 19, Barkan discloses a system for sterile compounding, comprising: a scale comprising: a base portion having an illumination source disposed therein [Barkan: FIG. 2]; and a platen supported by the base portion with a support to engage with a top surface of the scale [Barkan: FIG. 2], the platen comprising a light- transmissible portion configured to allow the illumination source to illuminate an object placed on the platen [Barkan: FIG. 2]; a housing including an image capture device therein, the image capture device having a field of view for capturing at least one image of an object placed on the platen [Barkan: FIG. 2]; and a user display in communication with the image capture device [Barkan: ¶ [0017] In one exemplary embodiment, the reader 10 is stationary and the image and decoder systems are supported within an interior region 18 of a housing 20 (see FIG. 1). The housing 20 may be integrated into a sales counter that of a point of sales system that includes, for example, a cash register, a touch screen visual display or other type user interface and a printer for generating sales receipts. The housing 20 depicted in FIG. 1 includes two transparent windows H, V], the user display configured to display information relating to the object. [Barkan: Claim 18: A multi-camera imaging-based bar code reader for imaging a target bar code on a target object, the bar code reader comprising: housing means supporting a plurality of transparent windows and defining an interior region bounded in part by the plurality of windows for imaging a target bar code; imaging means including a plurality of camera assemblies means coupled to an image processing system means wherein each camera assembly means of the plurality of camera assemblies means is positioned within the housing interior and define a field of view which is different than a field of view of each other camera assembly means of the plurality of camera assemblies means; sensing means for each camera assembly means including a sensor array, an imaging lens assembly for focusing the field of view of the camera assembly means onto the sensor array, and an illuminating device for shining light onto a camera assembly field of view; memory means for storing images from the sensing means; processing means for determining a presence of an object by activating one camera assembly, evaluating images from the one camera assembly and activating additional camera assemblies once an object is detected; and decoder means for evaluating images from a plurality of camera assemblies for determining a content of an identified bar code on a detected object].
Barkan may not explicitly disclose wherein the illumination source is configured to illuminate the light-transmissible portion with a visual indicator when a weight measured by the scale is within a target weight tolerance range.
However, Bachmann discloses wherein the illumination source is configured to illuminate the light-transmissible portion with a visual indicator when a weight measured by the scale is within a target weight tolerance range [Bachmann: Col. 3, ll. 37-45: The use of a common display device to indicate the tolerance range and to signal the quasi-stable standstill condition of the scale, in the case of optical indicators that either light up or are dark, leads to two possible solutions as regards standstill indication, in that the indicators either light up in the dynamic range of the weighing process and become dark when the stable range is reached, or are dark in the dynamic range and light up when entering the stable range].
Examiner notes, as written in the independent claims, the platen appears to be disclosed by the glass in a base portion of a standard bar code scanner. However, in the dependent claims it appears to suggest the platen is more of a tray, such as disclosed by Conley et al. (US 2009/0078606 A1), in ¶ [0028], which would have been obvious to combine with Barkan to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in order to improve the utility of products used in processes as well as the dynamic light indicator of Bachmann in order to provide the user with improved situational awareness.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann discloses wherein the platen is configured to be disposable [Conley: ¶ [0032]].
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann discloses wherein the base portion further comprises a barcode scanner arranged therein [Barkan: Claim 18].
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 2015/0010758 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the platen further comprises a visual identifier configured to identify a center of the platen.
However, Ito discloses wherein the platen further comprises a visual identifier configured to identify a center of the platen [Ito: ¶ [109]: Moreover, as illustrated in FIG. 7, the imaging section 26A of the terminal device 26 that images the verification images may include a positioning means to determine the capture position of the tablet 30 that is subject to determination. In this example, a front face 26C of an imaging stage 26B on which the tablet 30 is placed is applied with a positioning marker 26D for identifying a capture position and capture orientation. Note that the positioning means is not limited to the illustrated marker or similar. For example, the positioning means may be configured by a recessed portion, such as a holder or pocket, that is indented in the shape of the tablets subject to management].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the refence identifier of Ito with the process of Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the platen further comprises one or more grooves in an upper surface thereof.
However, Ito discloses wherein the platen further comprises one or more grooves in an upper surface thereof [Ito: FIG. 7].
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Stevens et al. (US 5011020).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Barkan in view of Conley may not explicitly disclose wherein the platen further comprises an absorbent material configured to absorb a liquid that contacts the platen.
However, Stevens discloses wherein the platen further comprises an absorbent material configured to absorb a liquid that contacts the platen [Stevens: Col. 1, ll. 57-62: In addition, it will usually include at least one absorbent pad on the removable tray, so that any materials which are spilled can be absorbed, thereby minimizing the risk of human contact with the toxic agents].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the absorbent material of Stevens with the process of Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann in order to minimize the risk of human contact with toxic agents.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the platen further comprises a coating layer configured to indicate that a fluid has contacted the coating layer.
However, Stevens discloses wherein the platen further comprises a coating layer configured to indicate that a fluid has contacted the coating layer [Stevens: Col. 4, ll. 35-37].
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Koh (US 2006/0283766 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 10, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann may not explicitly disclose wherein the platen further comprises a cover disposed over at least a portion of an upper surface thereof, and wherein the cover is configured to be disposable.
However, Koh discloses wherein the platen further comprises a cover disposed over at least a portion of an upper surface thereof, and wherein the cover is configured to be disposable [Koh: ¶ [0040]: FIG. 9a illustrates additional elements of the system including a tray cover 922 which could be constructed from clear plastic or any other suitable material to cover the pill counting tray. The edge 921 of the tray cover 922 may be outward sloping in order to prevent contamination of the disposable pill counting tray 405. FIG. 9b illustrates several tray covers 922 which have been stacked and nested together for convenient storage].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the lid of Koh with the process of Barkan in view of Conley and Bachmann in order to prevent contamination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17, and 20 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: While use of illuminated lights to determine weight tolerance on a scale is known in the art, the use of change in colors to indicate a weight measured by the scale is within a target weight tolerance range along with all other limitations of the claims has not been found in the prior art.
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.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights