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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 06/16/205 & 07/23/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This application is a CON of 18/647,810 filed on 04/26/2024 now PAT 12,361,244.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the optical characteristics…”. Claim 1 only recites “ground truth characteristics…”. 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/361,244 (hereinafter referred as '244). 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: a cabin configured to receive a container comprising compartments configured to receive an object; an imaging system configured to: receive at least one image captured by at least one imaging device; identify, by comparing the at least one image to a reference image, one or more empty compartments; determine, whether an identifier associated with the object is present within the remaining compartments; when the identifier is present, confirm the presence of a valid object in the remaining compartments based on the identifier; when the identifier is not present, determine whether the remaining compartments are empty, the determining comprising: process the at least one image to identify regions of interest in the at least one image; compare the regions of interest with ground truth characteristics, wherein the ground truth characteristics are based on the reference image; and when a pre-determined level of difference is detected based on the comparison, identify the region of interest as an invalid object.
Whereas claim 1 of '244 application, the applicant claims:
A system, comprising: a cabin configured to receive a container comprising compartments configured to receive an object; an imaging system housed within the cabin, the imaging system comprising: at least one imaging device; at least one light configured to illuminate the container during image capture; one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to: receive at least one image captured by the at least one imaging device; identify, using image processing by comparing the at least one image to a reference image, one or more empty compartments; determine, using image processing, whether an identifier associated with the object is present within the remaining compartments; when the identifier is present, compare the identifier to known identifiers to confirm the presence of a valid object in the remaining compartments; when the identifier is not present, determine whether the remaining compartments are empty, the determining comprising: process, using blob detection, the at least one image to identify regions of interest in the at least one image; compare optical characteristics of the regions of interest with ground truth characteristics, wherein the ground truth characteristics are based on the reference image; and when a difference, based on the comparison, between the optical characteristics and the ground truth characteristics is greater than a threshold, identify the region of interest as an invalid object.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use in the present invention “one light configured to illuminate the container during image capture…” so as to ensure adequate lighting for scanning the image and enable successful reading. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of '244 patent and differ only by terminology. To the extent that the present claims are broader and generic to the claimed invention of '244 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).
Claims 2-9 recite similar limitations as of claims 2-9 of '244 patent with different terminology. For instance, claim 2 recites “imaging system…” whereas claim 2 of '244 patent recites “one or more processors…”.
Claim 10 recites exact limitations as of claim 10 of '244 patent.
Claim 11 is rejected under double patent in view of claim 11 of '244 patent with different terminology.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected under double patent as being dependent of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable upon filing of 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 when the identifier is present, confirm the presence of a valid object in the remaining compartments based on the identifier; when the identifier is not present, determine whether the remaining compartments are empty, the determining comprising: process the at least one image to identify regions of interest in the at least one image; compare the regions of interest with ground truth characteristics, wherein the ground truth characteristics are based on the reference image; and when a pre-determined level of difference is detected based on the comparison, identify the region of interest as an invalid object. 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.
Sawhney et al. (US 2020/0372287) teaches sample container recognition.
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