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
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/253,025 filed on 06/27/2025.
Claims 1 – 21 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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).
Claims 1 – 3, 9, 10, 12 - 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 10, 12, 13 and 17 U.S Patent No. 12,365,373 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current Application 19/253,025
US Patent No. 12,365,373 B2
Claim 1. An inspection assembly comprising:
a first angled camera oriented at least partially in a generally vertical direction and at least partially in a first horizontal direction, the first angled camera being directed to a first target region in a three-dimensional space from a first viewpoint;
a second angled camera oriented at least partially in the generally vertical direction and at least partially in a second horizontal direction that is different from the first horizontal direction, the second angled camera being directed to a second target region in a three-dimensional space from a second viewpoint;
an upright camera oriented substantially in the generally vertical direction, the upright camera being configured to capture images of a third target region in the three-dimensional space from a third viewpoint, wherein the first angled camera is spaced apart from the upright camera in the second horizontal direction and the second angled camera is spaced apart from the upright camera in the first horizontal direction;
one or more lights; and
a housing configured to attach to a railway.
Claim 1. An inspection assembly comprising:
a first angled camera oriented at least partially in a vertical direction and at least partially in a first horizontal direction, the first angled camera being directed to a first target region in a three-dimensional space from a first viewpoint;
a second angled camera oriented at least partially in the vertical direction and at least partially in a second horizontal direction that is substantially opposite the first horizontal direction, the second angled camera being directed to a second target region in a three-dimensional space from a second viewpoint;
an upright camera oriented substantially in a vertical direction, the upright camera being configured to capture images of a third target region in the three-dimensional space from a third viewpoint;
one or more lights;
a housing configured to attach to a railway at a location between opposing rails of the railway; and
one or more air curtains configured to blow air across a lens of at least one of the first angled camera, the second angled camera, or the upright camera.
Claim 2.
Claim 12.
Claim 3.
Claim 13.
Claim 9.
Claim 2.
Claim 10.
Claim 9.
Claim 12.
Claim 3.
Claim 13.
Claim 4.
Claim 14.
Claim 5.
Claim 15.
Claim 6.
Claim 16.
Claim 7.
Claim 17.
Claim 8.
Claim 18
Claim 9.
Claim 19.
Claim 1.
Claim 20.
Claim 10.
Claim 21.
Claim 17.
Regarding claims 4 – 8 and 11, the limitations or features of these claims is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of a desired spacings such as number of tie spacings that can left between two angled cameras. Regarding claim 11, based on the design purposes specification, upright camera can be mounted below the top surface of ties of the railway, which can be done a ordinary skilled person in the art.
Nonetheless, claim 1 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1 U.S Patent No. 12,365,373 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 – 3, 9, 10, 12 - 21 is not patentably distinct from claim claims 1 – 10, 12, 13 U.S Patent No. 12,365,373 B
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snead et al (US 8,934,007 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights