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 .
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
This application is a CON of 18/523,994 filed on 11/30/2023 now PAT 12,315,002 which is a CON of 17/862,074 filed on 07/11/2022 now PAT 11,861,683 which is a CON of 17/153,343 filed on 01/20/2021 now PAT 11,386,484 which is a CON of 16/869,684 filed on 05/08/2020 now PAT 10,902,504 which is a CON of 16/443,053 filed on 06/17/2019 now PAT 10,650,439 This application is a CON of 15/978,645 filed on 05/14/2018 now PAT 10,325,308 which is a CON of 15/667,025 filed on 08/02/2017 now PAT 9,972,045 which is a CON of 15/297,404 filed on 10/19/2016 now PAT 9,741,070 which is a CON of 14/920,205 filed on 10/22/2015 now PAT 9,477,982 which is a CON of 14/289,983 filed on 05/29/2014 now PAT 9,171,281.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no antecedent basis for the limitations “the associations…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,683 (hereinafter referred as '683). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims are expressly found in the claimed application. For instance, claim 1 of the present application recites the following limitations:
A system comprising: N location indicators for arrangement throughout a store that includes a plurality of stocked items for picking, wherein each of the N location indicators is configured to transmit a different location signal such that N different location signals are transmitted in the store, wherein the N location signals define M different areas of the store, each of the M areas covered by one or more of the N location signals, and wherein each of the stocked items is associated with one of M different location values, each of the M location values corresponding to one of the M areas; and a computing system configured to store mobile computing device instructions configured to be executed by a mobile computing device including a display, wherein executing the mobile computing device instructions causes the mobile computing device to: store a location map that defines how the M areas are arranged; store the associations between the stocked items and the M location values; receive an electronic customer order comprising a plurality of ordered items indicating which of the stocked items are to be picked; detect one or more of the N location signals; determine a current location value of the M location values based on the one or more detected location signals; receive a global positioning system (GPS) signal; and arrange at least some of the plurality of ordered items on the display based on the received GPS signal and at least one of the current location value, the location map, and the associations between the stocked items and the M location values.
Whereas claim 1 of '683 application, the applicant claims:
A system comprising: N location indicators for arrangement throughout a store that includes a plurality of stocked items for picking, wherein each of the N location indicators is configured to transmit a different location signal such that N different location signals are transmitted in the store, wherein the N location signals define M different areas of the store, each of the M areas covered by one or more of the N location signals, and wherein each of the stocked items is associated with one of M different location values, each of the M location values corresponding to one of the M areas; and a computing system configured to store mobile computing device instructions configured to be executed by a mobile computing device including a display, wherein executing the mobile computing device instructions causes the mobile computing device to: store a location map that defines how the M areas are arranged; store the associations between the stocked items and the M location values; receive an electronic customer order comprising a plurality of ordered items indicating which of the stocked items are to be picked; detect one or more of the N location signals; determine a current location value of the M location values based on the one or more detected location signals; and arrange at least some of the plurality of ordered items on the display based on at least one of the current location value, the location map, and the associations between the stocked items and the M location values.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use in the present invention “a global positioning system signal” so as to provide specific locations within the mapped area. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of '683 patent and differ only by terminology. To the extent that the present claims are generic to the claimed invention of '683 patent, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the application term by prohibiting claims in a second application not patentably distinct from claims of a first application. In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 3 recites exact limitations as of claim 2 of '683 patent.
Claim 4 recites exact limitations as of claim 3 of '683 patent.
Claim 5 recites exact limitations as of claim 5 of '683 patent.
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as of claim 6 of '683 patent with different terminology.
Claim 6 recites similar limitations as of claim 11 of '683 patent.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 recite limitations not enclosed in any claim of '683 patent. For instance, '683 patent does not teach “a received GPS signal…”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite limitations not enclosed in any claim of '683 patent. For instance, '683 patent does not teach “the number of junctions between a pair of the N areas defines the distance between the pair of the N areas…”.
Claim 12 is rejected under double patent in view of '683 patent (see claim 2 above).
Claim 13 recites exact limitations as of claim 15 of '683 patent.
Claim 14 recites exact limitations as of claim 16 of '683 patent.
Claim 15 recites exact limitations as of claim 18 of '683 patent.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as of claim 24 of '683 patent.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as of claim 19 of '683 patent with different terminology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable upon filing a proper Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to specifically teach a computing system configured to store mobile computing device instructions configured to be executed by a mobile computing device including a display, wherein executing the mobile computing device instructions causes the mobile computing device to: store a location map that defines how the M areas are arranged; store the associations between the stocked items and the M location values; receive an electronic customer order comprising a plurality of ordered items indicating which of the stocked items are to be picked; detect one or more of the N location signals; determine a current location value of the M location values based on the one or more detected location signals; receive a global positioning system (GPS) signal; and arrange at least some of the plurality of ordered items on the display based on the received GPS signal and at least one of the current location value, the location map, and the associations between the stocked items and the M location values. These limitations in conjunction with other limitations in the claimed invention were not shown by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lafrance (US 2016/0210591) teaches system and method for managing and optimizing delivery networks.
Kulathumani et al. (US 12,499,482) teaches customized retail environments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWYN LABAZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Mr. STEVE PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876