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 1-10 are currently being examined. By Applicant’s amendment of June 21, 2025, claims 1-10 are pending following: Claims 1-9 have been amended New claim 10 has been added 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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. ( JP 2006/143369 ) in view of Tsukagoshi ( JP H082712 ). Regarding independent claim 1 , Morimoto et al. discloses: A form sorting system [See at least Abstract, Par. 0001, 0009] comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; [See at least Par. 0010, 0063] and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions [See at least Par. 0010, 0063] to: recognize forms placed in a stack ; [See at least Par. 0010, 0040-0042, 0060-0062] and control… based on a result of the recognition… to place each one of the one or more of the forms to a conveyor so as not to overlap with another form, [See at least Par. 0018, 0042] wherein the conveyor conveys forms to a sorting mechanism. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (sorting apparatus), 103 (conveying path), 109 (sorting control unit), 108 (pockets); Par. 0040, 0064] While Morimoto et al. discloses a form sorting system recognizing forms and placing them on a conveyor to a sorting mechanism , Morimoto et al. does not disclose a robot to pick up the forms. With respect to these limitations, Tsukagoshi , directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, teaches: control a robot … the robot controlled to pick up one or more of the forms placed in a stack [See at least Par. 0006, 0010-0013] 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 Morimoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Tsukagoshi and combine the robot with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. The robot of Tsukagoshi allows automatic placement and additional manipulation of the sheets beyond a simple transfer by a roller, enabling increased speed and effectiveness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the robot of Tsukagoshi with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and the features of the robot of Tsukagoshi 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 Tsukagoshi because they are a known work directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 5 , Morimoto et al. discloses : The form sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: read a description of a form from an image obtained by capturing any one of a form conveyed by the conveyor and a form sorted by the sorting mechanism; [See at least Par. 0044, 0060, 0092-0094] and generate form data indicating a description of the form. [See at least Par. 0047, 0085, 0092-0094] Regarding claim 6 , Morimoto et al. discloses : The form sorting system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate form data including an image of the form. [See at least Par. 0076-0077, 0092 -0093] Regarding claim 7 , Morimoto et al. discloses : The form sorting system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate form data including a storage destination of the form. [See at least Par. 0085-0086] Regarding independent claim 8 , Morimoto et al. discloses : recognizing forms placed in a stack; [See at least Par. 0010, 0040-0042, 0060-0062] and control… based on a result of the recognition… to place each one of the one or more of the forms to a conveyor so as not to overlap with another form, [See at least Par. 0018, 0042] wherein the conveyor conveys forms to a sorting mechanism. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (sorting apparatus), 103 (conveying path), 109 (sorting control unit), 108 (pockets); Par. 0040, 0064] While Morimoto et al. discloses a form sorting system recognizing forms and placing them on a conveyor to a sorting mechanism, Morimoto et al. does not disclose a robot to pick up the forms. With respect to these limitations, Tsukagoshi , directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, teaches: A robot control method [See at least Par. 0005-0006] comprising: control a robot… the robot controlled to pick up one or more of the forms placed in a stack [See at least Par. 0006, 0010-0013] 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 Morimoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Tsukagoshi as discussed above, see c laim 1 . Regarding independent claim 9 , Morimoto et al. discloses: A recording medium non-transitorily storing a program causing a computer to execute: recognizing a position of a form placed in a stack; [See at least Par. 0042, 0052, 0091-0095] and control… based on a result of the recognition… to place each one of the one or more of the forms to a conveyor so as not to overlap with another form, [See at least Par. 0018, 0042] wherein the conveyor conveys forms to a sorting mechanism. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (sorting apparatus), 103 (conveying path), 109 (sorting control unit), 108 (pockets); Par. 0040, 0064] While Morimoto et al. discloses a form sorting system recognizing forms and placing them on a conveyor to a sorting mechanism, Morimoto et al. does not disclose a robot to pick up the forms. With respect to these limitations, Tsukagoshi , directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, teaches: control a robot… the robot controlled to pick up one or more of the forms placed in a stack [See at least Par. 0006, 0010-0013] 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 Morimoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Tsukagoshi as discussed above, see c laim 1 . Regarding claim 10 , Morimoto et al. discloses : The form sorting system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate form data including at least one of an image of the form, or a storage destination of the form. [See at least Par. 0076-0077, 0085-0086, 0092-0093] Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP 2006/143369) in view of Tsukagoshi (JP H082712) and further in view of Yoneda et al. ( JP 2002/234615 ). Regarding claim 3, w hile Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi teach the form sorting system with robot and conveyor, Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi do not teach reversing the forms. With respect to these limitations, Yoneda et al., directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, teaches: The form sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control a reversing mechanism for reversing a form surface in the conveyor. [See at least Par. 000 6 -0009] 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 Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi to incorporate the teachings of Yoneda et al. and combine the reversing mechanism with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi . The reversing system of Tsukagoshi allows additional manipulation of the sheets without requiring predetermined directionality , enabling increased speed and effectiveness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the reversing mechanism of Yoneda et al. with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi and the features of the reversing mechanism of Yoneda 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 Yoneda et al. because they are a known work directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP 2006/143369) in view of Tsukagoshi (JP H082712) and further in view of Hube (US PN 5640647). Regarding claim 4, Morimoto et al. discloses: The form sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: read a description of a form from an image [See at least Par. 0044, 0060, 0092-0094] and generate form data indicating a description of the form. [See at least Par. 0047, 0085, 0092-0094] While Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi teach the form sorting system with robot and conveyor, Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi do not explicitly teach capturing the form within the document stack. With respect to these limitations, Hube , directed to the same technology – scanning documents – teaches: The form sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: obtained by capturing the form placed in a stack; [See at least Col. 2, Lines 35-54] 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 Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi to incorporate the teachings of Hube and combine the capturing the form within the stack with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi . The capturing the form within the stack of Hube allows additional processing of the sheets, enabling increased speed and effectiveness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the capturing the form within the stack of Hube with the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the sorting system of Morimoto et al. and Tsukagoshi and the features of the capturing the form within the stack of Hube 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 Hube because they are a known work directed to solving the same problem, moving individual sheets, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner's Note 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Erin Morris whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1112 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacob Scott can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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