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 .
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. 12412151 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences, i.e. a message that is customized to mitigate a cause of “potential user issue” versus “potential customer complaint”, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose, inter alia, accessing a customer order that includes one or more items; determining input data for an item of the one or more items; determining, by the computer system, a prediction value associated with potential for a user issue for the item by the computer system applying a machine-learned prediction model to the input data, wherein the machine-learned prediction model was trained by: accessing a training data set including item identifiers for a plurality of items including the item and instances of user issue for the plurality of items, applying the machine-learned prediction model to the training data to generate a training output, backpropagating one or more error terms obtained from one or more loss functions to update a set of parameters of the machine-learned prediction model based, and one or more of the error terms are based on a difference between a label applied to an item of the training data and a predicted probability of receiving a user issue for that item, and stopping the backpropagation after one or more criteria are satisfied; and providing instructions based on the prediction value to a picker client device associated with the item, wherein providing the instructions based on the prediction value to the picker client device causes the picker client device to present an alert, and wherein the alert includes a message that is customized to mitigate a cause of potential user issue for the item.
The closest prior art of record, JP 2024517412, filed 4/15/22, discloses: "In an embodiment, the
CMO digital twin 8308 may be configured to monitor customer feedback loops, customer opinions, customer satisfaction, complaints, product returns, and the like, based at least in part on the use of a monitoring agent of a client application 8052 as described herein associated with the CMO digital twin 8308. Such feedback data may include, but is not limited to, data derived from call center activity, chatbot activity, emails (e.g., complaints), product returns, submissions to a Better Business Bureau, or other types of customer feedback or expressions of customer opinion. The client application 8052 may include a monitoring agent that monitors how customers and the like respond to marketing campaigns. The monitoring agent may report customer responses to such campaigns to the EMP 8000 for presentation in a user interface associated with the CMO digital twin 8308. In response, the EMP 8000 can train an enforcement agent (which can include one or more machine learning models) to process and process such notifications when they next arrive, and escalate and/or alert the CMO if such notifications are of an urgent nature, e.g., the announcement of a class action lawsuit related to the product that is the subject of the marketing campaign. In an embodiment, the CMO digital twin 8308 can generate performance alerts based on performance trends. This allows the CMO to optimize marketing campaigns in real-time without having to manually request such real-time performance data. The CMO digital twin 8308 can automatically present such information and relevant/necessary alerts as configured by the organization, the CMO, or other stakeholders." “These value chain entities 652 may include any of the wide variety of assets, systems, devices, machines, components, equipment, facilities, individuals, or other entities mentioned throughout this disclosure or in documents incorporated by reference herein, including, but not limited to: machines 724 and their components (e.g., delivery vehicles, forklifts, conveyors, loaders, cranes, lifts, carriers, trucks, loaders, unloaders, packers, pickers, and robotic systems, including, for example, physical robots, collaborative robots (e.g., “cobots”), drones, autonomous vehicles, software hotspots, and many others)”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's
disclosure. JP-2025538950-A, JP-2024518578-A, JP-2024500818-A, US-11983641-B2, US-11676098-B2, and US-20190354922-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
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, FLORIAN ZEENDER can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights