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 1-42 are currently being examined. By applicant’s amendment of November 25, 2025, claims 1-42 are pending following:
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 17, 24, 25, 27, 29, and 41 have been amended
Response to Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims to address the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the First Office Action of September 16, 2025. Applicant’s amendments adequately address and resolve the required issues; therefore, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see Applicant’s Remarks, filed November 25, 2025) have been fully considered but the amended claims do not yet fully distinguish over the prior art or the co-pending reference. Discussion of the arguments is provided below.
Applicant is encouraged to review the Potentially Distinguishing Features noted below in response to the 1st and 2nd arguments. Examiner would be happy to discuss these features if Applicant desires an interview and can be reached at (703) 756-1112 or via USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) to schedule.
Argument: the “programmable motion devices” recited in the co-pending matter are distinct from “engagement devices” recited herein.
Applicant argues the co-pending matter recites a limitation requiring at least two cooperatively operable programmable motion devices, which is not recited herein.
Per MPEP 2111.01 “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.”
In the instant specification, the dynamic engagement system is described in at least Par. 0054 comprising a panel 20 and two articulated arms 24, 26 to urge objects from the stack onto the panel. However, in at least Par. 0037 and 0055, these same features (articulated arms) are referred to as “programmable motion devices.” The limitation “cooperatively operable” in the co-pending application is interpreted under BRI to mean “working together in a coordinated manner,” whose BRI encompasses coordinated movement where two devices may perform specific tasks independently to achieve a shared goal (like the instant) as well as two devices which rely on each other to interdependently perform a task to achieve a shared goal (like the co-pending).
While the amendments to co-pending application 17/959,862 (entered after the date of the Office Action), overcome the provisional statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims do not yet include features which would make them patentably distinct from the claims of the co-pending application.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over originally filed claims 1-3 and 8-12 of co-pending application No. 17/959,862 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claims. The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 30-36, and 41 is maintained.
Potentially Distinguishing Features: Examiner notes there are both structural and functional features of the engagement system not yet included in the independent claims which could make these claims patentably distinct from the reference application. The structural feature of the collection panel in combination with the two engagement systems (comprising the larger dynamic engagement system), as recited in claim 37 would provide a feature that is patentably distinct from the co-pending application. The functional feature of independent operation of each engagement system would also provide a feature that is patentably distinct from the co-pending application. For example, a wherein clause such as “wherein each of the at least two different engagement systems independently engage the plurality of objects with the trailer.” This example is provided for illustration purposes only; Applicant is not required to use this phrasing and may choose any portion/variation or different wording they deem most appropriate to express the independently functioning nature of the two engagement systems.
Inclusion of the structural feature of the collection panel would overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection, but not yet fully distinguish over the prior art (see claim 37, He et al. in view of Kanunikov et al. and further in view of Girtman et al.). However, as Applicant has argued, the functional feature of the independent operation of each engagement system, as opposed to the interdependent functions of He et al., would provide a feature that is both patentably distinct over the co-pending application and could also potentially distinguish over the prior art of record.
Argument: In He et al., only one robotic device engages with the plurality of objects within the trailer while the other robotic device engages with the objects handled by the first robotic device in a sequential processing mode.
Applicant argues each of at least two different engagement systems engage the plurality of objects within the trailer.
Examiner has interpreted Applicant’s argument to be directed toward the independent functioning of each engagement system, based on at least Pars. 0018, 0019, and 0067-0070 and Figs. 9 and 10 with each of the 1st and 2nd articulated arms pulling separate objects (separate in identify, location and number) onto the collection panel and independent swapping of end effectors for each articulated arm.
As noted in response to the 1st argument regarding double patenting, while the amendments to co-pending application 17/959,862 (entered after the date of the Office Action), overcome the provisional statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims do not yet include features which would make them patentably distinct from the claims of the co-pending application.
Potentially Distinguishing Features Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that the functional feature of independent operation of each engagement system could provide a feature that is patentably distinct from the co-pending application and could potentially distinguish over the prior art. However, as currently claimed, this functional feature is not yet included in the independent claims in a way which is patentably distinct from either the co-pending application or distinguishes over the sequential operations of He et al. The BRI of each of the two different engagement systems engaging with the objects encompasses both the cooperative task (cooperatively operable) of the co-pending application, and the sequential tasks of He et al.
Explicit recitation of independent function would provide a distinguishing feature to overcome both of these references. For example, a wherein clause such as “wherein each of the at least two different engagement systems independently engage the plurality of objects with the trailer.” This example is provided for illustration purposes only; Applicant is not required to use this phrasing and may choose any portion/variation or different wording they deem most appropriate to express the independently functioning nature of the two engagement systems.
Argument: The teachings of He and Kanunikov, taken alone or as combined fail to teach or suggest the securement detection system.
Applicant argues Examiner mischaracterizes the disclosure of Kanunikov where the grid pattern shown in Fig. 7A are lines that indicate layers of a packing plan (not object securement netting).
Claims 13 and 25 recite the limitation “a securement detection system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative to any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects.” The specification [Par. 0071] as argued by Applicant recites “a retention detection system may also be employed to determine whether a retention system is present within a trailer (e.g., such as a restraining net, wall, or set of objects that are wrapped together, for example and provided on a pallet).”
Per MPEP 2111, “claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification,” and per MPEP 2111.01(II), “it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification.” The limitation in claims 13 and 25 is consistent with the specification and it would be improper for Examiner to narrow the plain meaning of the recited limitation in the claims “whether any of the plurality of objects are secured from movement” to contravene BRI and only include “whether a retention system is present,” as the meaning of the limitation.
Examiner has mapped the limitations recited in the claims, where Kanunikov teaches a system for detecting whether any of the plurality of objects within the trailer are secured from movement relative to any of the trailer or other objects of the plurality of objects, as mapped in the First Office Action. The rejections are maintained, as the limitations recited in the claims are taught by the prior art it would be improper for Examiner to contravene BRI for the narrower interpretation present in the specification without an amendment to the claim language.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 8-14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 30-36 and 41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over originally filed claims 1-3, 8-14, 19, 21-23, and 28-35 of co-pending Application No. 17/959,862 (reference application). Amendments to the reference application since the mailing of the instant’s Office Action overcome the provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-3 and 8-12 as claiming the same invention but do not yet include features which are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application. The provisional rejection of non-statutory double patenting of claims 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 30-36 and 41 from the First Office Action is maintained. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claims. For a more comprehensive explanation see the First Office Action mailed September 16, 2025.
Claim Rejections – Prior Art
The prior art rejections from the First Office Action are maintained. For brevity, only the paragraphs reciting the rejected claims and applied prior art references are included. Refer to the First Office Action mailed September 16, 2025, which is incorporated herein, for full mapping and table of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 22, 34, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (CN 209684850).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Wicks et al. (US 2015/0352721).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Nakamoto et al. (EP 3623324).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Azuma et al. (US 2021/0171295).
Claims 8, 9, 13, 18, 22, 25, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 2021/0129334).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Wicks et al. (US 2015/0352721) and further in view of Bando et al. (US 2021/0198090).
Claims 11, 20, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Wicks et al. (US 2015/0352721) and Bando et al. (US 2021/0198090) and further in view of Pack (KR 101847787).
Claims 12, 21, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Clarke et al. (US 2006/0255617).
Claims 14, 15, 23, 26, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Wicks et al. (US 2015/0352721).
Claims 16, 17, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Azuma et al. (US 2021/0171295).
Claims 19 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and Wicks et al. (US 2015/0352721) and further in view of Bando et al. (US 2021/0198090).
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Nakamoto et al. (EP 3623324).
Claims 37, 38, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Girtman et al. (US 2015/0037131).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Eakins et al. (EP 2500150).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 209684850) in view of Kanunikov et al. (US 11020854) and further in view of Diankov et al. (US 2020/0223066).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 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