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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galluzzo et al.(“Galluzzo”)(US 2015/0332213 A1) in view of Gravelle et al. (“Gravelle”) (US 2023/0271785).
Galluzzo (fig. 1-7) teaches a multi-cycle shipment sorting system and method comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a delivery platform, provided with a delivery entrance, a delivery outlet, and an unloading port (fig. 7 showing automated distribution center with delivery zone near 740, 750 comprising an entrance near 752, 753 and delivery outlet and unloading port at opposite ends of conveyor 754; para. 94, 102, 105);
a delivery device (fig. 7 showing multiple conveyor elements capable of delivering shipment boxes/totes in replenishment area), capable of delivering a plurality of shipment boxes in sequence from the delivery entrance to the unloading port, and outputting, after unloading, a plurality of the shipment boxes from the delivery outlet, wherein more than one piece of a same kind of shipment is contained in each of the shipment boxes, different shipment boxes are capable of containing same or different shipments, wherein each of the shipment boxes is installed with an identification device (para. 15, 99-107 teaching that robot is capable of reading a bar code to verify correct tote during replenishment process);
a sorting platform, provided with a sorting entrance, a sorting outlet, and a cyclic section, wherein the cyclic section is provided with a loading port (fig. 7 wherein sorting platform can be regarded as including storage and sorting areas near 710, 720 wherein cyclic area can be regarded as entire sorting platform that robots repeatedly traverse; see also fig. 3 and para. 85, 104 teaching charging area near 340 within sorting area, wherein sorting entrance can be regarded as where robots enter sorting zone from said charging area and sorting outlet can be regarded as where robots exit sorting zone to enter charging area);
plural self-navigation trolleys (600), wherein the self-navigation trolleys enter from the sorting entrance, and are ranked, when passing through the cyclic section, according to positions of shipments delivered by the delivery device, then run out of the sorting outlet after loading at the loading port (fig. 6; para. 66-69, 86-106 teaching that control system 200 receives order info and then selects robot with para. 99 teaching that robot selection is “based on current location or availability”);
a positioning device, configured for performing positioning when the self-navigation trolleys are running (Id. wherein positioning elements can be regarded as software instructions and associated structural elements related to positioning of items, totes and/or robots, e.g., para. 79 teaching optimizing routing of robots; para. 101 teaching that robots “may autonomously navigate” and para. 105 teaching that control system may instruct robot to pick up items at multiple locations);
a shipment-carrying device, provided with an identifier that can read the identification devices of the shipment boxes, wherein the identifier is fixed close to the unloading port, and the shipments in the shipment boxes can be taken out and loaded on the self-navigation trolleys located at the loading port manually or by a robot (fig. 7 showing receiving and replenishment area wherein a shipment-carrying device comprising an identifier, such as a camera sensor, included in the receiving area to identify incoming items/totes is inherent; para. 105 teaching that totes can be manually loaded in replenishment area); and
a server, wherein the server is connected to the self-navigation trolleys in a wireless manner, and is connected to the identifier, the delivery device, and the robot in a wired or wireless manner, respectively (fig. 2 showing central server; para. 48, 53, 69-74 teaching central server wirelessly linked to control sorting robots 100, 600);
wherein the self-navigation trolleys are capable of running in multiple cycles on the cyclic section (Cf. fig. 3-7 showing that robots can run multiple clockwise or counter clockwise cycle through sorting area via charging station);
(re: claim 3) wherein the cycles are clockwise or counterclockwise single-direction cycles (Id.);
(re: claims 4, 13) wherein the self-navigation trolleys are capable of passing through the loading port several times to be loaded (Id.);
(re: claims 5, 14-16) wherein the identification device is a bar code, a QR code, a graphic mark, a color mark, a size mark, or an RFID tag, and correspondingly, the identifier is a camera or an RFID card reader (para. 45, 70, 74 teaching that each item, i.e., SKU, can have marking codes imprinted thereon that may be read by sensors such as cameras—wherein it logically follows that totes are similarly marked);
(re: claim 7) wherein the delivery device is a drum conveyor, wherein the shipment boxes are placed on the drum conveyor to be conveyed, and the drum conveyor is electrically connected to the server (fig. 7 showing drum conveyors in receiving and replenishment area with fig. 2 showing connection);
(re: claim 9) wherein the delivery device is the self-navigation trolleys wherein the self-navigation trolleys are connected to the server in a wireless manner, and the positioning device for running of the self-navigation trolleys is installed on the delivery platform; (fig. 7 wherein the robot is capable of functioning as delivery device; para. 19 teaching wireless interface; para. 20 teaching positioning elements/markers that aid self-navigation of robots);
(re: certain elements of claim 10) information of the shipments is obtained by the server through scanning QR codes of the shipments via a code scanner, and information of the shipment boxes is obtained by the identifier through identifying the identification devices of the shipment boxes (para. 19, 45, 70, 99 teaching that server obtains information via scanning barcode and UPC data); and
the sorting entrance and the sorting outlet are connected to a packaging place (fig. 7 showing packing area 720);
(re: claim 11) wherein a plurality of bar codes, QR codes, graphic marks, color marks, size marks, or RIFD tags are selected for the positioning device to be pasted on a platform, and cameras are installed on the self-navigation trolleys (para. 20, 45, 70, 74).
(re: claim 12) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below (see e.g., para. 101-104 teaching that robot may wait for completion of order, that “order” may be closed out and that robot may return to charging station after completing sorting task).
Galluzzo as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 6, 17-20) wherein the shipment-carrying device further comprises:
a displayer and/or a sound player, wherein the displayer and/or the sound player is electrically connected to the server, and workers load the shipments manually according to prompts of the displayer and/or the sound player;
(re: claim 8) wherein, the drum conveyor is U-shaped;
(re: certain elements of claim 10) wherein the delivery entrance and the delivery outlet are connected to a warehouse, and the delivery device is connected to a warehouse that delivers the shipments;
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the prior art may be interpreted as not including (re: claim 1) shipment-carrying device, provided with an identifier that can read the identification devices of the shipment boxes.
Here, Examiner notes that Galluzzo already teaches that a robot functioning as a delivery device including an identifier, i.e., camera configured to read bar code information, is well-known in the automated warehouse arts as it allows verification of a correct tote/shipment box and also teaches that user interface elements in a shipment/item loading zone are beneficial as these interface elements allow manual input of item data (fig. 7 and para. 101-114 teaching robots performing delivery functions; para. 23, 33, 51, 74 teaching that robots may include sensors, such as color cameras, that allows reading of identification codes as well as a user interface, such as touch screen and keyboard, to display information as well as receive user input).
Gravelle further teaches that it is well-known in the automated sorting and warehouse distribution arts to configure a receiving area with U-shaped conveyors—and scanning/identifier elements—to increase input capacity as well as to connect the packaging area with delivery elements, such as robotic elements to transport totes (Cf. fig. 2, 3, 7, 9 showing warehouse comprising receiving/return zones with user input interface as well as shipping areas connected with delivery elements; para. 120, 128 teaching that receiving elements include optical scanners to read identifier codes on totes; fig. 10c, 15B showing transport elements that include roller conveyor and robotic vehicles)
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., U-shaped conveyors, identifier and user-interface elements)with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Galluzzo for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04 (stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure). Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, Applicant essentially argues that the device cited in Galluzzo is not capable of running in multiple cycles on the cyclic section of the sorting platform (claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1156
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
909
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees as figures 3 and 7 show that the autonomous-robots, i.e., self-navigation trolleys, are capable of running in multiple cycle on the sorting platform—i.e., sorting area. Applicant’s further arguments attempt to distinguish Galluzzo by arguing different technical fields or a different technical essence. These arguments, however, are also not persuasive and do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art of record. That is, the claim limitations are the principal focus during patentability determination and it is not clear how arguing that Galluzzo has a “different technical essence” overcomes the prior art rejection that includes clear structural elements of a sorting platform and autonomous robots capable of performing in a cyclic fashion thereon. Examiner recommends amending the claims with actual structural limitations that distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art of record. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art renders Applicant’s claims are obvious and undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
March 20, 2026