DETAILED ACTION
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 at least Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,441,560 (“US ‘560”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to material handling systems that include the combination of:
a storage array,
an automated package transport system,
an automated palletizer, and
a controller programmed with a pallet load generator with an initial pallet load plan for forming, completely and stably, the pallet load of mixed packages in mixed package layers in an initial planned pallet load distribution.
In both sets of claims, the controller registers from at least one of the storage array and the automated package transport system at least one scratch package, and the pallet load generator is arranged to identify a corresponding pallet layer, of the scratch package, in the initial pallet load plan. The controller then determines a corresponding void, formed by the scratch package. The pallet load generator determines a measure of stability resulting from the void and heuristically resolves the void based on optimization of the measure of stability to equal or exceed a predetermined threshold.
The two sets of claims differ in that in the US ‘560 patent, the pallet load generator optimizes the stability by performing either a repose of that least one adjacent package relative to the void, or by swapping another package into the void, while in the present application, the pallet load generator is programmed with a meta-pose package resolver that optimizes the stability from meta poses of the adjacent package. As explained in the common Specification, “meta poses” include the “moving, rotation, and/or centering” of an adjacent package (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056] of the publication of the present application, US 2026/0035190). Claim 7 of the US ‘560 patent recites that “repose of the at least one adjacent package includes a horizontal translation of the at least one adjacent package at least partially into the corresponding void”, wherein a “horizontal translation” can be construed to be equivalent to “moving” or “centering”. In addition, Claim 10 of the US ‘560 patent recites that "repose of the at least one adjacent package includes a rotation of the at least one adjacent package about a center of the at least one adjacent package from an initial rotational pose to a translated rotation pose.” As such, the combination of Claims 1 and 7 and/or Claims 1 and 10 of the US ‘560 patent teach a “meta-pose package resolver”, as recited in Claim 1 of the present application.
The following table summarizes the claims of the present application that are also described in the US ‘560 patent:
19/358,060
(Present application)
US 12,441,560
(Co-owned parent application)
Correlation
1
1/7 or 1/10
Substantially the same scope: The combination of Claims 1 and 7, or Claims 1 and 10 substantially teach the claimed “meta-pose package generator.” The remaining limitations of Claim 1 of the present application and Claim 1 of the US ‘560 patent have the same scope.
2
1
Substantially the same scope: Claim 1 of the US ‘560 patent teaches that the pallet load generator determines the measure of stability from either repose or swapping of the adjacent package and the pallet load generator generates a pallet load replan.
3
1
Substantially the same scope: Claim 1 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “repose, relative to the corresponding void, at least one adjacent package adjacent the corresponding void in the initial pallet load plan”.
4
2
Exact same scope: Claim 2 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the repose of the at least one adjacent package closes the corresponding void at least in part.”
5
7
Exact same scope: Claim 7 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “repose of the at least one adjacent package includes a horizontal translation of the at least one adjacent package at least partially into the corresponding void.
6
10
Exact same scope: Claim 10 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “repose of the at least one adjacent package includes a rotation of the at least one adjacent package about a center of the at least one adjacent package from an initial rotational pose to a translated rotation pose.
7
14
Exact same scope: Claim 14
of the US ‘560 patent teaches “swapping the at least another package by placing at least another package within the corresponding void, wherein the at least another package and the scratch package belong to a common pallet load layer.”
8
15
Exact same scope: Claim 14
of the US ‘560 patent teaches “swapping the at least another package by placing the at least another package from a superposed pallet load layer, relative to a pallet load layer of the scratch package, to within the corresponding void.”
9
16
Exact same scope: Claim 14
of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the scratch package and the at least another package are disposed in a common stack of packages, and the pallet load generator is configured to effect swapping the at least another package by lowering the at least another package within the common stack of packages into the corresponding void.”
10
17
Exact same scope: Claim 17
of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the pallet load generator is further configured to horizontally translate the at least one adjacent package, in an adjacent stack of packages, at least partially into another void created within the common stack of packages by the lowering of the at least another package.
11
12
Exact same scope: Claim 12
of the US ‘560 patent teaches “swapping the at least another package closes the corresponding void at least in part and creates another void corresponding to an initial position of the at least another package.”
12
13
Exact same scope: Claim 13 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the pallet load generator is configured to resolve the other void, based on optimization of the measure of stability to equal or exceed a predetermined threshold, from at least one of: repose, relative to the other void, at least one adjacent package adjacent the other void in the initial pallet load plan, and swapping, at least another package of the initial pallet load plan into the other void for the swapped package.”
13
3
Exact same scope: Claim 3 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the predetermined threshold of the measure of stability characterizes the corresponding pallet layer with the resolved void as stable for automatic palletization.”
14
4
Exact same scope: Claim 4 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the predetermined threshold of the measure of stability characterizes resolution of the corresponding void to a resolved void, and reformation of the corresponding pallet layer, destabilized by the corresponding void, to a stable layer made stable by the resolved void.”
15
5
Exact same scope: Claim 5 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the stable layer defines a stable support, commensurate with each other stable layer of the pallet load re-plan, for automatic palletization of all superposed layers on the stable layer.”
16
6
Exact same scope: Claim 6 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the measure of stability is proportional to a containment radius disposed around a centroid of a package, within which containment radius all points belong to a bounding polygon of supports of the package formed by inferior packages on which the package is seated.”
17
8
Exact same scope: Claim 8 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the pallet load generator is configured to: horizontally translate the at least one adjacent package in a sequence of incremental pose translations; determine a measure of stability for each of the incremental pose translations of the at least one adjacent package; and select a pose of the at least one package, for the pallet load re-plan, corresponding to the incremental pose translation having the greatest measure of stability.”
18
9
Exact same scope: Claim 9 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the pallet load generator is configured to: horizontally translate more than one of the at least one adjacent package in respective sequences of incremental pose translations; determine a measure of stability for each combination of the respective incremental pose translations of the more than one of the at least one adjacent package; and select respective poses of the more than one of the at least one package, for the pallet load re-plan, corresponding to a combination of the respective incremental pose translations having the greatest measure of stability.”
19
11
Exact same scope: Claim 11 of the US ‘560 patent teaches “the pallet load generator is configured to: determine a measure of stability for the at least one package in both the initial rotational pose and the translated rotational pose; and select a pose of the at least one package, for the pallet load re-plan, corresponding to the one initial rotational pose and the translated rotational pose having the greatest measure of stability.”
20
18
Substantially the same scope: Claim 18 of the US ‘560 patent teaches that the automated palletizer has “a first arm” and “a second arm”, the “first arm” having the same capabilities of the “automated palletizer” and the “second arm” having the capabilities of the “another automated palletizer”, as recited in Claim 20 of the present application (i.e., “having overlapping access that spans at least a portion of a footprint of the pallet; wherein the pallet load generator is configured to: with the initial pallet load plan assigning the scratch package to the first arm [“automated palletizer”], heuristically resolve the corresponding void only from packages assigned in the initial pallet load plan to the first arm [“automated palletizer”]; and with the initial pallet load plan assigning the scratch package to the second arm [“another automated palletizer”], heuristically resolve the corresponding void only from packages assigned in the initial pallet load plan to the second arm [“another automated palletizer”].“
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0139256 describes a material handling system for handling and placing packages on a pallet that includes a controller communicably connected to a case infeed and at least one pallet building robot, the controller being configured so as to generate a complete and stable mixed case arrangement plan that completes at least a predetermined whole part of the mixed case pallet and that describes a predetermined planned location and pose for each case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652