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 Status
Claims 1-19 are currently being examined. One or more items in the IDS submitted 26 November 2025 has necessitated prosecution to be reopened.
Examiner's Note
The JPO Office Action (JP2023512374, dated 11/4/2025) rejected the claims as unpatentable over US 2020/0094997 in view of JP 2003/128002. Prosecution has been reopened as this combination was found to read on the broader limitations as currently recited; however, Examiner notes that the instant application includes further details not taught by these references which could potentially distinguish over the prior art of record if incorporated into the independent claims.
Potentially Distinguishing Features: Examiner notes there are potentially distinguishing features and details present in the specification and drawings which are not currently included in the claims. These features include:
Each robotic workcell of the instant handles multiple items from multiple supply bins, see at least Par. 0055
Redundant bins and Coordination/Error Correction between robotic workcells, including to adjust or repeat items and correct errors downstream if an item is missed upstream, see at least Par. 0125, 0130, 0193
Considerations regarding the prior art references:
The input conveyors of US 2020/0094997 also handle multiple item types within reachable distance of the robot; however, redundant lines/items and correction of errors are not discussed
The robots of Watanabe et al. function individually handling one food supply line for each type of food [See at least Par. 0023, 0030-0031]; while they coordinate to each transfer a food item to the tray in order and may be argued to “be capable of” transferring multiple items, there is no discussion of correcting for errors or repeating items
A multiplication of parts [See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of parts] argument in addition to the explicit reference of JP 2003/128002 (alluded to in the JPO rejection) could be made regarding multiple workcells and/or item types; however, intentional redundancy and coordination to correct errors could potentially demonstrate a new or unexpected result produced that has patentable significance
Potential Paths to Allowance
Claim 1: to incorporate the features discussed above, Applicant could incorporate the limitations of claim 2 (packing items) into claim 1 to match the scope of claim 1 to the scope of claims 10 and 19, followed by incorporating details of the above-discussed features.
Claims 10 and 19: incorporation of details of the above-discussed features.
Applicant could incorporate one or both of the features/details noted above; Examiner notes that incorporation of both (as the second naturally flows from the first) would provide the strongest evidence of distinguishing features over the prior art.
The combined features/details above are not currently included in the claims in a manner to distinguish over the prior art. Inclusion of the distinctive combination of features of this invention would provide additional limitations which could distinguish over the prior art of references.
The potentially distinguishing features above are the most prominent examples which the Examiner has noted and Applicant is encouraged to review the prior art made of record [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited], as each of these prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. If Applicant chooses to amend the claims, Applicant is encouraged to review the noted features above in light of the prior art references and MPEP sections governing 35 U.S.C. 102 [See MPEP 2120, MPEP 2131, and MPEP 2114] and U.S.C. 103 [See MPEP 2120 and MPEP 2141].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menon et al. (US 2020/0094997) in view of Watanabe et al. (JP 2003/128002).
Regarding independent claim 1, Menon et al. discloses:
A system for automated packing of items [See Par. 0001] comprising:
a conveyor system configured to transport a set of item totes through the conveyor system; [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 108 (conveyor) and 114 (box); Par. 0030]
wherein each robotic workcell of the plurality of robotic workcells comprises a robotic pick-and-place machine [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 116 (robotic arm)] and a set of item bins [See Fig 1, Ref. Numerals 102,104,106 (kitting machines)], the set of item bins being within a reachable range of the robotic pick-and-place machine; [See Pars. 0031, 0035, 0080]
a control system [See Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 122 (control computer)] including configuration to:
process order requests to automatically set a packing fulfillment plan [See Pars. 0033, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0068] in view of the plurality of operatively coupled robotic workcells,
direct, according to the packing fulfillment plan, automatic supply loading of the set of item bins at locations across the plurality of robotic workcells, [See Pars. 0033, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0068, 0080] and
manage operation of the plurality of robotic workcells to fulfill packing of the order requests. [See Pars. 0033, 0034, 0039, 0040, 0068]
While Menon et al. discloses a conveyor system and robotic workcells, Menon et al. does not disclose the robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a part of the conveyor. With respect to these limitations, Watanabe et al., directed to the same technology — robots working with items transported by a conveyor — teaches:
a plurality of operatively coupled robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a portion of the conveyor system; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals RB1, RB2, RB3 (robots 1-3) along conveyor]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Menon et al. to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe et al. and combine the robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a part of the conveyor with the conveyor system and robotic workcells of Menon et al. The robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a part of the conveyor of Watanabe et al. allows multiple robotic workcells functioning at the same time, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a part of the conveyor of Watanabe et al. with the conveyor system and robotic workcells of Menon et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the conveyor system and robotic workcells of Menon et al. and the features of the robotic workcells aligned in series along at least a part of the conveyor of Watanabe et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (robots working with items transported by a conveyor), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
For brevity, only independent claim 1 has been explicitly mapped to illustrate the JPO rejection and indicate the basis for reopening of prosecution. Dependent claims 2-9 depend from independent claim 1 and were previously mapped in the First Office Action mailed 7/25/2024.
Independent claim 10 recites a method of automated packing of items with the same structural elements as the system of independent claim 1 and is rejected on the same basis. Dependent claims 11-18 depend from independent claim 10 and were previously mapped in the First Office Action mailed 7/25/2024.
Independent claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a robotic packing system to perform the operations of the method steps of independent claim 10, using the same structural elements as the system of independent claim 1 and is rejected on the same basis.
As noted in the Examiner’s note above, the instant application contains elements and details beyond that taught by the cited references, which could potentially distinguish over the prior art of record.
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights