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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed on 5/26/26. Claims 1, 8, 15 amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 430, 521. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claims are obviously expressly found an implied in the instant application .
Claim 1 of the instant application recites the following limitations:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the programming instructions, upon execution by the at least one processor, causing the system to: receive or obtain radio frequency identification (RFID) tag data gathered from a sales floor of a retail facility, the RFID tag data including signal strengths of RFID signals transmitted by RFID item tags and a signal strength of an RFID signal transmitted by an RFID location tag that is separate from the RFID item tags, wherein the RFID item tags identify items on the sales floor and the RFID location tag identifies a location on the sales floor; analyze a combination of the signal strengths of the RFID item tags and the signal strength of the RFID location tag to identify an extraneous item within a threshold range of the RFID location tag; and transmit an alert or notification to move the extraneous item to an assigned location on the sales floor in response to identifying the extraneous item within the threshold range of the RFID location tag.
Whereas claim 1 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521 the applicant claims:
1. A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions causing the processor to: receive, by a central computing device, radio frequency identification (RFID) tag data gathered by a robotic device maneuvering across a sales floor of a retail facility, the RFID tag data including signal strengths of RFID item tags and a signal strength of an RFID location tag, wherein the RFID item tags identify apparel items offered for sale on the sales floor and the RFID location tag identifies a location on the sales floor, the RFID location tag being separate from the RFID item tags; analyze, by the central computing device, a combination of the signal strengths of the RFID item tags and the signal strength of the RFID location tag to identify a set of RFID item tags that are located within a threshold range of the RFID location tag; determine, by the central computing device, that a set of the apparel items identified by the set of RFID item tags includes an extraneous apparel item associated with an assigned location on the sales floor that is different than the location on the sales floor identified by the RFID location tag; and send a notification to the robotic device, the notification instructing the robotic device to move the extraneous apparel item from the location on the sales floor identified by the RFID location tag to the assigned location on the sales floor.
The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the patented
application and differs only by terminology which is well within the level of one of
ordinary skill in the art. Reading claims 1-20 of the instant application in light of the
specification, the Examiner finds that claims 1-20 merely recite an obvious variant of the
invention already patented in claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521 B2.
The correspondence of claims is as follows:
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1, 2, 4 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5, 6, 8 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claims 5 and 7 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9, 10, 12 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claims 9 and 11 of US Patent No. 12, 430, 521.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 15have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant amended the claims with new limitations which necessitated new search and consideration. Therefore this action is FINAL.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
Kantor et al. discloses Locating system for determining item location in industrial setting.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights