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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21, last two line recites, “the push between the…”, The phrase, “the push” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 36 is rejected similar to claim 21 for having the same deficiency. The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
Applicant is advised to check the rest of the claims for similar issues.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Goldberg, claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12005566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 21, Goldberg discloses a robotic food handling system (claim 1) comprising:
a peel configured to support food items (claim 1);
a robotic appendage coupled to the peel and configured to position the peel (claim 1); and
a push bar movable along a surface of the peel between a withdrawn position and a push position (claim 1); and
a push bar actuator operatively coupled to the push bar and configured to move the push between the withdrawn position and the push position (claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the push bar has a forward face with an arcuate profile that substantially matches a shape of a food item periphery (claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the push bar extends substantially perpendicularly to a surface of the peel and is movably coupled to the peel via one or more tracks that extend along side edges of the peel (claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the push bar actuator comprises a push bar piston and associated cylinder having one or more extendable arms configured to apply a longitudinal force against the push bar (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 25, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the peel comprises food grade material and has an upper surface, a lower surface, a leading edge, and a trailing edge, with the push bar located proximate the trailing edge (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 26, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the peel includes one or more channels on the lower surface and corresponding grooves on the upper surface, and the push bar includes corresponding tabs configured to fit into the channels and grooves to maintain alignment during movement (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 27, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the push bar has a height based upon a height of a food item to be placed on the upper surface, and extends at least partially across a width of the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 28, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising a first actuator including a first piston and associated cylinder with extendable arms coupled to a quick release coupler attached to the peel for translating the peel between retracted and extended positions (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 29, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the quick release coupler includes at least one of a bayonet mount, a locking pin, bolts, guide rails, or mating pins with corresponding holes for quick attachment and detachment of the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 30, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising one or more balance sensors located on the peel for generating signals indicating position, orientation, pitch, speed, velocity, or acceleration of the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 31, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising one or more weight sensors arranged along the peel, each weight sensor generating a signal related to a downward force being placed upon a respective portion of the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 32, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising one or more temperature sensors on the peel for detecting a temperature of a food item being transported by the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 33, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the robotic appendage includes a plurality of segments with rotatable joints providing respective axes of rotation for controlling peel positioning and pitch (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 34, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the robotic appendage includes a rotatable platform providing a vertical axis of rotation for positioning the peel, and rotation of at least one segment controls a pitch of the peel relative to a horizontal plane (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 35, Goldberg discloses the system of claim 21, further comprising a counterweight system including a selectively extendable element that extends when the peel supports a food item and retracts when no food item is on the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 36, Goldberg discloses a method of operating a robotic food handling system, the method comprising:
providing a robotic food handling system (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16) comprising:
a peel configured to support food items (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16);
a robotic appendage coupled to the peel and configured to position the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16); and
a push bar movable along a surface of the peel between a withdrawn position and a push position (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16); and
a push bar actuator operatively coupled to the push bar and configured to move the push between the withdrawn position and the push position (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16);
determining, by a control system, a movement plan for moving the push bar between the withdrawn position and the push position (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16);
transmitting signals to activate the push bar actuator to move the push bar based upon the determined movement plan (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16); and
controlling the push bar to selectively push food items off of the peel (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 37, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 36, further comprising controlling the robotic appendage coupled to the peel to position the peel during operation of the push bar (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 38, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 37, further comprising modifying a pitch of the peel by rotating a segment of the robotic appendage concurrently as the peel is being translated to create a scraping motion (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 39, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 36, further comprising:
receiving signals from one or more sensors on the peel indicating weight distribution or presence of food items (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16); and
determining from the sensor signals whether the peel has fully loaded, fully unloaded, or is in process of loading or unloading food items (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 40, Goldberg discloses the method of claim 36, further comprising:
detecting foreign matter or objects on the peel using one or more sensors (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16); and
generating an alert or stopping operation in response to detecting foreign matter or objects (claims, 1, 2, 14, 16).
Conclusion
The prior art, OLEYNIK; Mark (US 2016/0059412) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights