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 21 and 34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,349. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as follow:
19/218,864 (Claim 21) USP 12,337,349 (Claim 1)
A system for use in directing a sorting operation, the system comprising: a server comprising a memory, a processor, and a receptacle assignment engine;
A system for use in directing a sorting operation, the system comprising: a server comprising a memory, a processor, and a receptacle assignment engine
a plurality of receptacles configured for receiving articles therein, each receptacle defined by at least one side wall and a floor that together define a receiving space for one or more articles;
a plurality of receptacles configured for receiving articles therein, each receptacle defined by at least one side wall and a floor that together define a receiving space for one or more articles
a sleeve removably attached to the receptacle such that a lower portion of the sleeve contacts an inner surface of the at least one side wall of the receptacle, with an upper portion of the sleeve extending upward above a top rim of the receptacle and defining an opening that permits access to the receiving space of the receptacle; and,
a sleeve removably attached to the receptacle such that a lower portion of the sleeve contacts an inner surface of the at least one side wall of the receptacle, with an upper portion of the sleeve extending upward above a top rim of the receptacle and defining an opening that permits access to the receiving space of the receptacle
one or more automated transport devices for transporting and depositing articles into the receptacles;
one or more automated transport devices for transporting and depositing articles into the receptacles;
wherein the system configured to: direct the one or more automated transport devices to transport and deposit a first count of articles into the receptacle after the sleeve is removably attached over a top region of the receptacle
wherein the system configured to: assign a first count of articles occupying a first volume to a receptacle such that the first count of articles overfills the receptacle when all of the first count of articles are deposited thereinto; and direct the one or more automated transport devices to transport and deposit the first count of articles into the receptacle after the sleeve is removably attached over a top region of the receptacle
Claim 34
Claim 2
Claims 22-24, 26-33, and 36-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,349 in view of Claybrook et al (WO 2024/064747 A1) (as seen in IDS dated 10/10/2025).
Regarding claim 22, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to move the receptacle to one of: a packing station, and a location of further processing (paragraph 0052) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 23, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to sort the articles for one of: reshelving, restocking, and subsequent processing (paragraph 0079) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 24, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system further comprises a mobile robot for removing the receptacle and replacing it with an empty receptacle (paragraph 0019 and 0061) for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle.
Regarding claim 26, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system further comprises a transfer robot operable to unload the receptacle carried on a chamber bank (paragraph 0059) for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle.
Regarding claim 27, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system further comprises a transfer robot configured to remove and replace the receptacle with an empty receptacle (paragraphs 0019 and 0059) for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of replacing a full receptacle with an empty receptacle.
Regarding claim 28, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to direct an automated device to transport the receptacle to a location of further processing (paragraphs 0059-0060) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 29, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the server is configured to direct one of: a person, a robot, and an automated device to transport the receptacle to a location of further processing (paragraphs 0059-0060) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 30, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to direct sealing of the receptacle prior to shipping the receptacle to one of: a store address, and a customer address (paragraphs 0043) for the purpose of preparing the items so that they can be transported or shipped to its destination. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of preparing the items so that they can be transported or shipped to its destination.
Regarding claim 31, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to transport the receptacle to a location of further processing where the receptacle is one of: closed and sealed (paragraphs 0043) for the purpose of preparing the items so that they can be transported or shipped to its destination. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of preparing the items so that they can be transported or shipped to its destination.
Regarding claim 32, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to assign a receptacle located closest to an article induction point to a destination that is to receive a greatest number of articles (paragraphs 0058) for the purpose of ensuring that the multiple trips needed to fill a particular high demand destination involve the shortest travel durations or the shortest. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of ensuring that the multiple trips needed to fill a particular high demand destination involve the shortest travel durations or the shortest.
Regarding claim 33, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the server is configured to one of: calculate, and estimate a time instant when the receptacle will get full (paragraphs 0056) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 36, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to sort the articles for one of: delivery routes, and delivery destinations (paragraphs 0078) for the purpose of facilitating sorting article receptacles for different delivery routes and destinations. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of facilitating sorting article receptacles for different delivery routes and destinations.
Regarding claim 37, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to associate multiple receptacles with a single destination ID (paragraphs 0068) for the purpose of when a store order requires more than will fit in one receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of when a store order requires more than will fit in one receptacle.
Regarding claim 38, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to determine one receptacle among a plurality of receptacles to deposit an article thereinto based on an identifier of the article (paragraphs 0067) for the purpose of facilitating sorting the article into the targeted article receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of facilitating sorting the article into the targeted article receptacle.
Regarding claim 39, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches a fill level of the receptacle is detected by a sensor (paragraphs 0052) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 40, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the sensor is in one of: a two-way communication, and a two-way communication, with the server (paragraphs 0052) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 41, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the sensor is configured to sense whether the receptacle is one of: empty, underfilled, filled, overfilled, and ready to receive articles (paragraphs 0052) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 42, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches a beam from a light curtain senses one of: a level to which the receptacle is filled up, and when the receptacle is full (paragraphs 0053) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 43, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches one or more of a: load cell, proximity sensor, and RFID tracking system, for monitoring the system (paragraphs 0064) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 44, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches a dimensional camera for dimensioning the article (paragraphs 0064) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 45, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches one or more of: a side barcode scanner, a top barcode scanner, and a bottom barcode scanner (paragraphs 0062) for the purpose of collecting information of an article that can be used to determine a destination output receptacle. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of collecting information of an article that can be used to determine a destination output receptacle.
Regarding claim 46, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches a transparent shield positioned above the bottom scanner (paragraphs 0062) for the purpose of deflecting an article if it drops during scanning. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of deflecting an article if it drops during scanning.
Regarding claim 47, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to associate the article carried on the transport device with a specific receptacle based on an identifier of the article (paragraphs 0061) for the purpose of placing an article to a specific receiving location. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of placing an article to a specific receiving location.
Regarding claim 48, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the server is configured to direct replacement of the receptacle that is full with a second receptacle (paragraphs 0058) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 49, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system determines that the receptacle is full after the system has dispatched a transport device to the receptacle, the system is further configured to re-route the transport device to a second receptacle (paragraphs 0060) for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sensing and processing a receptacle of articles as being full or not full.
Regarding claim 50, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Claybrook teaches the system is further configured to minimize a total distance traveled by all transport devices to fill a specific receptacle (paragraphs 0058) for the purpose of ensuring that the multiple trips needed to fill a particular high demand destination involve the shortest travel durations. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of ensuring that the multiple trips needed to fill a particular high demand destination involve the shortest travel durations.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,349 in view of Trautman (USP 11,691,784).
Regarding claim 25, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Trautman teaches the system further comprises a crane operable to move vertically and horizontally along a side of a sorter forming part of the system (col. 5, lines 10-57 where a crane acts as an article moving device) for the purpose of moving articles between conveying sections for further processing. 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 ‘349, as taught by Trautman, for the purpose of moving articles between conveying sections for further processing.
Regarding claim 35, ‘349 does not disclose the claim limitations. Trautman teaches the sleeve fitted onto the receptacle is removed at a packing station before the receptacle is one or more of: closed or sealed (col. 2, lines 5-17 where the collected items are sent to be sealed) for the purpose of sealing a package for shipping and transportation. 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 ‘349, as taught by Claybrook, for the purpose of sealing a package for shipping and transportation.
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