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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office action on 11/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-23 are pending in the application. In response, the previous objections to the Drawings and Specification are withdrawn. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to independent claims 1, 18, and 19 improve understanding of the claims. However, it is still unclear what the claimed “source of items” is in claims 1, 18, and 19, and the source of items in dependent claims 13-16 seems to be different than the source of items in the independent claims.
In the embodiment of Fig. 18, which is given as an example in Applicant’s Remarks (pg. 11), the source of items appears to be either chute/funnel 1815 or source conveyor 1820 [0255-0256]. This is consistent with paragraphs [0261] and [0274], which suggest that the source of items, in the embodiments of Figs. 19 and 22, is one of a chute/funnel, a conveyor, or a pick table, as explained in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/19/2025. Yet this description conflicts with the claimed limitation “a chute that carries the source of items to the conveyor”, which implies the source of items is different from the recited chute and conveyor in independent claims 1, 18, and 19. Furthermore, the source of items does not seem to be a pick table (how does a chute carry a pick table to a conveyor?). Therefore, the claimed “source of items” is indefinite, and the rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-23 under 112(b) are maintained.
Additionally, claim 3, which was separately rejected under 112(b) for reciting the limitation “the objects” with insufficient antecedent basis, has not been amended nor has the rejection specifically been argued against. Therefore, the rejection of claim 3 under 112(b) is maintained.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0256], “chute 1870” should read “chute 1815”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 18, and 19, the limitation “to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor” (emphasis added) is redundant.
In claim 8, “items” should read “the items” as items are previously recited in claim 1.
In claim 18, “an indication that in a source of items” should read “an indication that a particular item in a source of items”.
In claims 18 and 19, “an item diversion structure the to divert” should read “an item diversion structure to divert”.
In claim 18, “running reverse” should read “running in reverse”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
From page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, it is understood that the claim limitation “actuating a wall of the chute in coordination with the conveyor running in reverse, the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor and a raised position to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor based at least in part on running the conveyor in reverse, wherein the particular item is redirected off a side of the conveyor to the location associated with alternative item handling” in independent claims 1, 18, and 19 is supported in the Specification insofar as “actuating a wall of the chute” reconfigures/actuates the chute as a whole, like the embodiment depicted in Fig. 18 and described in [0255-0256].
Examiner notes that actuating a wall of the chute relative to the rest of the chute “between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor and a raised position to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor based at least in part on running the conveyor in reverse” does not have sufficient support in the application as originally filed on 03/24/2023. While a side wall of a chute is actuated in [0187] and a wall of a chute can be actuated in [0246], the lowered and raised positions of the wall are not recited. Other instances of a side wall being actuated appear to refer to a side wall of a conveyor, in which the lowered position allows redirection of items [0278] and the raised position keeps items on the conveyor (see [0265] and [0277])—the opposite of what is claimed—as explained in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/19/2025.
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 1-16 and 18-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 18, and 19 recite the limitations “a chute that carries the source of items to the conveyor” and “the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor”. From these limitations, it is not clear what the source of items is.
In the context of the previous claim set filed 06/23/2025, “a funnel that provides items to a conveyor comprising the source of items” shows that “the source of items” was either the funnel or the conveyor. In the embodiment of Fig. 18, the source of items appears to be either chute/funnel 1815 or source conveyor 1820 [0255-0256]. This is consistent with paragraphs [0261] and [0274], which suggest that the source of items, in the embodiments of Figs. 19 and 22, is one of a chute/funnel, a conveyor, or a pick table. However, the limitations “a chute that carries the source of items to the conveyor” and “the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor” suggest that the source of items is not the chute nor the conveyor. Furthermore, the source of items does not seem to be a pick table (how does a chute carry a pick table to a conveyor?). Therefore, the claimed “source of items” is indefinite, and independent claims 1, 18, and 19 are rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-16 and 20-23 are rejected for depending upon the rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the diversion structure comprises a side wall that is configured to be lowered to enable the particular item to be pushed off a surface comprising the source of items.” It is unclear how the source of items is carried by a chute to a conveyor, as in claim 1, and the source of items is also comprised by a surface. Therefore, the claimed “source of items” is indefinite, and claim 13 is rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein actuating the diversion structure comprises reconfiguring the conveyor comprising the source of items or the chute that provides items to the conveyor.” It is unclear how the source of items is carried by a chute to a conveyor, as in claim 1, and the source of items is also comprised by the conveyor. Therefore, the claimed “source of items” is indefinite, and claim 14 is rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 is rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein actuating the diversion structure comprises: tilting the conveyor comprising the source of items; and controlling the conveyor to run in reverse to feed the particular item out a rear of the conveyor.” It is unclear how the source of items is carried by a chute to a conveyor, as in claim 1, and the source of items is also comprised by the conveyor. Therefore, the claimed “source of items” is indefinite, and claim 16 is rejected accordingly.
Independent claims 1, 18, and 19 further recite the limitations “the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor and a raised position to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor based at least in part on running the conveyor in reverse”, and “actuating the item diversion structure [to ‘divert’ or ‘redirect’ items] comprises: controlling the conveyor to run in reverse”. Under a standard interpretation of “upstream”, running the conveyor in reverse moves items upstream, and supplying items to the conveyor in the forward direction moves the items downstream. Thus, it seems contradictory for the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream (i.e., after redirection, the items no longer move upstream) based on running the conveyor in reverse because the redirection should change the direction of the items from moving downstream to moving upstream. Therefore, the claimed limitation “the wall being moved between a lowered position… and a raised position to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor based at least in part on running the conveyor in reverse” is indefinite, and claims 1, 18, and 19 are rejected accordingly.
Claims 2-16 and 20-23 are rejected for depending upon the rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the objects". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “objects” are recited previously. Therefore, the claimed “objects” are indefinite, and claim 3 is rejected accordingly.
Claims 21 and 23 recite the limitation “the rear wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “rear wall” is recited previously in claims 1, 21, or 23. Therefore, the claimed “rear wall” is indefinite, and claims 21 and 23 are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Sun et al. (US 10906188 B1) discloses the limitations “A robotic system, comprising: a communication interface; and one or more processors coupled to the communication interface and configured to: obtain an indication that a particular item in a source of items requires handling by an alternative mechanism; and actuate an item diversion structure to divert the particular item away from a pickup zone and to a location associated with alternative item handling… wherein: the pickup zone comprises an area from which a robotic arm picks items for placement to a destination location according to a plan” of claim 1, as explained in the Final Rejection of 07/15/2025.
Wertenberger (US 20190071261 A1) teaches “wherein the particular item is provided to a conveyor from a chute” in [0057], “actuating a wall of the chute… the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor and a raised position” in [0055-0058], and “wherein the particular item is redirected off a side of the conveyor to the location associated with alternative item handling” in [0062]. Layne (US 20150001137 A1) teaches “controlling the conveyor to run in reverse” in [0097].
However, Examiner did not find prior art that teaches “wherein the particular item is provided to a conveyor from a chute that carries the source of items to the conveyor;” and “actuating the item diversion structure comprises: controlling the conveyor to run in reverse; actuating a wall of the chute in coordination with the conveyor running in reverse, the wall being moved between a lowered position for providing the source of items to the conveyor and a raised position to enable the conveyor to redirect items that were moving upstream by the conveyor based at least in part on running the conveyor in reverse, wherein the particular item is redirected off a side of the conveyor to the location associated with alternative item handling” alone or in a reasonable combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Therefore, independent claim 1 and claims 18-19, which claim similar limitations as claim 1, contain allowable subject matter. Claims 2-16 and 20-23 also contain allowable subject matter by depending on claim 1.
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 Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658