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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 07/24/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 13 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phase “back to the hopper” renders claim 15 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Prior to the quoted phrase, there is no mention of a hopper. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “back to a hopper”.
Claims 16-18 are dependent of claim 15 and include all the same limitations.
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, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Boucherie (6,315,103) in view of reference Pistorino (2016/0136816).
Regarding claim 1, Boucherie discloses a device (1) for separately-loading object into packages, the device comprises:
a separating assembly (10, 16) adapted to separate the objects (3) fetched from a hopper (13);
a first conveyor (8) adapted to receive and transport the objects (3) separated by the separating assembly (10, 16);
a second conveyor (23) arranged downstream of the first conveyor (8);
a return conveyor (29) arranged downstream of the first conveyor (8);
a detecting assembly (18) adapted to obtain detected data about the objects transported on the first conveyor (8);
a controller (7); and
a loading assembly (5) comprising at least one manipulator (20) arranged to a pickup region of the first conveyor (8),
wherein the at least one manipulator (20) adapted to pick up the target objects (3) from the pickup region of the first conveyor (8) and release the target objects (3) to respective dropping locations of the second conveyor (23),
wherein objects (3) not picked up are transported by the first conveyor (8) pass the pickup region to the return conveyor (29), and
wherein the return conveyor (29) is adapted to transport the objects back to the hopper (13).
(Figure 1, 2, 4 and Column 3 lines 43-54, Column 4 lines 18-25, 36-41, Column 5 lines 14-17, 23-25)
However, Boucherie do not disclose the controller is adapted to determine tangling information.
Pistorino discloses a device comprising a controller (901) configured to determine tangling information indicating whether objects (206) are tangled together. (Figure 1-2 and Page 2 paragraph 37, Page 4 paragraph 61, Page 6 paragraph 88)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Boucherie by incorporating the process of determining tangling information as taught by Pistorino, since page 9 paragraph 143 of Pistorino states such a modification would allow the controller to know when additional action is required to separate the objects.
Regarding claim 11, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the first conveyor (Boucherie – 8) comprises: an information acquisition region adapted for the detecting assembly (Boucherie – 18) to obtain the detected data, wherein the pickup region is arranged downstream of the information acquisition region and adapted for the loading assembly (Boucherie – 5) to pick up the objects (Boucherie – 3). (Boucherie – Column 4 lines 36-41)
Regarding claim 12, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the detecting assembly comprises: a camera (Boucherie – 18) arranged over the information acquisition region and adapted to obtain images of the objects (Boucherie – 3) transported on the first conveyor (Boucherie – 8) regularly. (Boucherie – Figure 2 and Column 4 lines 36-41)
Regarding claim 14, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose a second lifting apparatus (Boucherie – 32) arranged downstream of the return conveyor (Boucherie – 29) and adapted to lift the objects (Boucherie – 3) transported by the return conveyor (Boucherie – 29) to the hopper (Boucherie – 13). (Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 23-30)
Regarding claim 15, Boucherie discloses a method for separately-loading object into packages, the method comprises the steps of:
obtaining detected data about the objects (3) transported on a first conveyor (8); and
controlling at least one manipulator (20) to pick up the object (3) from a pickup region of the first conveyor and release the object (3) to respective dropping locations of a second conveyor (23) arranged downstream of the first conveyor (8),
wherein objects (3) not picked up are transported by the first conveyor (8) pass the pickup region to a return conveyor (29), and
wherein the return conveyor (29) is adapted to transport the objects back to a hopper (13).
(Figure 1, 2, 4 and Column 3 lines 43-54, Column 4 lines 18-25, 36-41, Column 5 lines 14-17, 23-25)
However, Boucherie do not disclose the controller is adapted to determine tangling information.
Pistorino discloses a device comprising a controller (901) configured to determine tangling information indicating whether objects (206) are tangled together. (Figure 1-2 and Page 2 paragraph 37, Page 4 paragraph 61, Page 6 paragraph 88)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Boucherie by incorporating the process of determining tangling information as taught by Pistorino, since page 9 paragraph 143 of Pistorino states such a modification would allow the controller to know when additional action is required to separate the objects.
Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Boucherie (6,315,103) in view of reference Pistorino (2016/0136816) as applied to claims 1 and 15 respectively, and further in view of reference Wagner et al. (10,538,394).
Regarding claim 2, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose determining position information based on the detected data and speed of the first conveyor.
Wagner et al. a device comprising: a first conveyor assembly (20, 36); a loading assembly (70); a detecting assembly (32, 34); and a controller (78), wherein the controller (78) is configured to:
determine the objects (14);
determine position information of each of the objects (14) based on the detected data and a speed of the first conveyor (20, 36); and
control the loading assembly (70) to load the objection (14) to a respective package based on position information.
(Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 54-65, Column 9 lines 35-46)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the controller of Boucherie by incorporating the determination of position information as taught by Wagner et al., since column 9 lines 43-46 of Wagner et al. states such a modification would allow the controller to know where the object is as the object moves along the conveyor.
Regarding claim 3, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a plurality of discharging ports downstream of the second conveyor.
Wagner et al. a device comprising a second conveyor (74) arranged downstream of a first conveyor (20, 36); and a plurality of discharging ports (82) arranged downstream of the second conveyor, wherein the second conveyor (74) comprises plurality of work ways (80) and dropping locations (84). (Figure 8, 10 and Column 10 lines 36-39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Boucherie by incorporating the plurality of work ways, dropping locations, and discharging ports as taught by Wagner et al., since column 10 lines 15-24 of Wagner et al. states such a modification would allow objects be delivered to a plurality of packages.
Regarding claim 4, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose the second conveyor (Boucherie – 23) comprises: a plurality of work ways (Wagner et al. – 80) associated with respective discharging ports (Wagner et al. – 82); and a plurality of dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84) arranged along each of the plurality of work ways and the adjacent drop locations (Wagner et al. – 84) spaced apart. (Wagner et al. – Figure 10 and Column 9 lines 43-47, Column 10 lines 15-19)
Regarding claim 5, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. is interpreted to disclose at least one manipulator (Boucherie – 20) adapted to pick up the target objects (Boucherie – 3) from the first conveyor (Boucherie. – 8) and to release the target objects (Boucherie – 3) to the respective dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84). (Wagner et al. – Column 7 lines 10-18, Column 9 lines 43-46)
Regarding claim 6, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose the controller (Boucherie – 7) is configured to determine the dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84) for releasing the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to a position of the at least one manipulator (Boucherie – 20) with respect to the second conveyor (Boucherie – 23). (Wagner et al. – Column 9 lines 39-46)
Regarding claim 7, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose the controller (Boucherie – 7) is configured to: determine the types of the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to detecting data; and determine the dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84) for releasing the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to the types. (Wagner et al. – Column 7 lines 63-67, Column 9 lines 39-46)
Regarding claim 16, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose determining position information based on the detected data and speed of the first conveyor.
Wagner et al. a device comprising: a first conveyor assembly (20, 36); a loading assembly (70); a detecting assembly (32, 34); and a controller (78), wherein the controller (78) is configured to:
determine the objects (14);
determine position information of each of the objects (14) based on the detected data and a speed of the first conveyor (20, 36); and
control the loading assembly (70) to load the objection (14) to a respective package based on position information.
(Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 54-65, Column 9 lines 35-46)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Boucherie by incorporating the step of determining of position information as taught by Wagner et al., since column 9 lines 43-46 of Wagner et al. states such a modification would allow the controller to know where the object is as the object moves along the conveyor.
Regarding claim 17, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a plurality of dropping locations.
Wagner et al. a device comprising a second conveyor (74) arranged downstream of a first conveyor (20, 36); and a plurality of discharging ports (82) arranged downstream of the second conveyor, wherein the second conveyor (74) comprises plurality of work ways (80) and dropping locations (84). (Figure 8, 10 and Column 10 lines 36-39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Boucherie by incorporating the plurality of work ways, dropping locations, and discharging ports as taught by Wagner et al., since column 10 lines 15-24 of Wagner et al. states such a modification would allow objects be delivered to a plurality of packages.
Regarding claim 18, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose determining types of the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to detecting data; and determining dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84) for releasing the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to the types. (Wagner et al. – Column 7 lines 63-67, Column 9 lines 39-46)
Regarding claim 19, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose a plurality of discharging ports (Wagner et al. – 82) arranged downstream of the second conveyor second conveyor (Boucherie – 23) and coupled to the respective packages (Wagner et al. – 90, 92). (Wagner et al. – Figure 8, 10 and Column 10 lines 36-39)
Regarding claim 20, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Wagner et al. disclose determining types of the target objects (Boucherie – 3) according to detecting data; and determining dropping locations (Wagner et al. – 84) for releasing the target objects (Wagner et al. – 14) according to the types. (Wagner et al. – Column 7 lines 63-67, Column 9 lines 39-46)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Boucherie (6,315,103) in view of reference Pistorino (2016/0136816) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Mogan (8,048,318).
Regarding claim 8, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose the separating assembly (Boucherie – 10, 16) comprises: a first lifting apparatus (Boucherie – 16) coupled to the hopper (Boucherie – 13) and comprising at least two carrying partitions (Boucherie – 17) spaced apart at a predetermined distance to the lift the objects from the hopper (Boucherie – 13) in batches. (Boucherie – Figure 4 and Column 4 lines 18-22)
However, Boucherie modified by Pistorino disclose do not disclose a centrifugal apparatus.
Mogan disclose device comprising: a hopper (101); a lifting apparatus (102) coupled to the hopper (100); and a centrifugal apparatus (200) adapted to centrifugal separate the objects lifted by the lifting apparatus (102). (Figure 2A and Column 4 lines 35-40, 49-52)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Boucherie by incorporating the centrifugal apparatus as taught by Mogan, since column 4 lines 49-52 of Mogan states such a modification would help orient and feed the objects into a single-file order.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Boucherie (6,315,103) in view of references Pistorino (2016/0136816) and Mogan (8,048,318) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of reference Fallas et al. (6,540,063).
Regarding claim 9, Boucherie modified by Pistorino and Mogan disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a separating conveyor comprising at least two sections.
Fallas et al. disclose a conveyor system comprising two sections (Figure 2), wherein the two sections (Figure 2) are adapted to run at different speeds to adjust the space between adjacent objects. (Figure 2 and Column 5 lines 16-31)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Boucherie by incorporating the two conveyor sections as taught by Fallas et al., since column 5 lines 16-21 of Fallas et al. states such a modification would allow the adjacent object to quickly separated by the desired distance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Boucherie (6,315,103) in view of references Pistorino (2016/0136816), Mogan (8,048,318), and Fallas et al. (6,540,063) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of reference Anderson et al. (5,178,225).
Regarding claim 10, Boucherie modified by Pistorino, Mogan, and Fallas et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a bidirectional vibration apparatus.
Anderson et al. disclose a conveyor system (20) comprising a bidirectional vibration apparatus configured to conduct motions in horizontal and vertical directions. (Figure 4 and Column 3 lines 64-67, Column 4 lines 3-5, Column 6 lines 64-68)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the device of Boucherie by incorporating the bidirectional vibration apparatus as taught by Anderson et al., since column 6 lines 48-53 of Anderson et al. states such a modification would help orient the objects parallel to each other and aligned lengthwise.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 07/24/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 13 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Wagner et al. (10,538,394) modified by reference Pistorina (2016/0136816), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Boucherie (6,315,103) modified by reference Pistorino (2016/0136816).
Conclusion
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Thanh Truong can be reached on (571) 272-4472. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 October 14, 2025
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights