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 .
It is noted that the instant application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application 18/399,000, filed December 28, 2023. Any information considered in the parent application has been considered in the instant application.
The specification and abstract of January 22, 2024, the drawings of May 21, 2024 and the claims of January 12, 2026 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 26-37 in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 12, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed November 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-38, 46 are pending. Claim(s) 1-25, 39-45 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 26, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 46 is/are newly presented.
It is noted that claims 27 and 29 have incorrect status identifiers.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on September 15, 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 18A is not described in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 75 and 77 appear to be identical.
Paragraph 76 refers to a Figure 18, however, no Figure 18 is present in the drawings.
Paragraph 175 refers to a Figure 18, however, no Figure 18 is present in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: at Line 4, please insert – that – between “arm” and “closes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that limitation “means for positioning the container” in claim 35 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) due to the presumption created by the use of the term “means”.
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 26-28, 46 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 26, the claim recites “transferring…to release the package group; and releasing the package group”. The language appears to set forth the package group is released twice; however, it is unclear how the package group can be released after it has been released.
Regarding Claim(s) 28, the language “transferring into a container the plurality of packages of the package group” renders the claim indefinite because while claim 26 sets forth that the package group comprises one or more of the plurality of package, the language of claim 28 only refers to a plurality of packages. The claim is unclear as to the number of packages required.
Regarding Claim(s) 29, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the transfer of the package group”. It is unclear what is encompassed by the language. The claim sets forth that the package group is released from the conveyor, but fails to set forth that the package group is transferred from conveyor.
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Claim limitation “hardware and/or software for releasing the one or more of the items” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while the limitation does not use the term “means”, the limitation does not set forth definite structure. The language “hardware and/or software” does not connote any specific structure and the language is modified by functional language “for releasing the one or more of the items”. Further, the claim language does not set forth sufficient structure for performing the function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, the “container” is not positively recited in the claim language; therefore, it is unclear if the container is required by the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, the language “when said package group is conveyed for further processing including transferring into a container the plurality of packages of the package group” renders the claim indefinite because it appears the language is attempting to limit the structure of the system based on actions performed, rather than limiting structure. Further, claim 29 fails to set forth the package group is conveyed for further processing.
Regarding Claim(s) 30 the language “transferring into a container the plurality of packages of the package group” renders the claim indefinite because while claim 29 sets forth that the package group consists of one or more of the plurality of package, the language of claim 30 only refers to a plurality of packages. The claim is unclear as to the number of packages required.
Regarding Claim(s) 35, Claim limitation “means for positioning the container” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not appear to disclose a corresponding structure or link the means to a corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 27, 28, 30-38 and 46 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be treated as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruodis (USPN 4026425).
Regarding Claim(s) 26, Gruodis (USPN 4026425) teaches diverting at least one package (20) of a plurality of packages, according to a sort criteria [Col. 1:20-24, “sort articles on the basis of the same separation identity criterion”]; accumulating in a zone (receptacle 18) one or more of the plurality of packages diverted according to the sort criteria into a package group [Col. 3:25-42, “articles 20 may be discharged into any desired single receptacle from a plurality of tiered sorting machine transport conveyors 12 by causing the articles to be discharged from the sorting machine transport conveyors 12”]; transferring the one or more of the plurality of packages as the package group comprising the one or more of the plurality of packages from the zone to release the package group (by opening door 38); and releasing the package group for further processing as the package group of the zone from which the package group was released (the articles are released into a container 42).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyd et al. (USPN 6208908).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Boyd et al. (USPN 6208908) teaches an automated sortation system comprising: a conveyor (receptacles 12 moving on track 20) configured to convey a plurality of items (“articles”); at least one controlled output section (pack station 16 having a door opening assembly 140) releasing from the conveyor a package group consisting of one or more of the plurality of items; a release controller (system controller 18) configured to control the transfer of the package group from the conveyor [Col. 12:6-13, “timing and sequence of the operation of the door opening assembly 140 is controlled by the system controller”], wherein the release controller comprises hardware and/or software for releasing the one or more of the items from the conveyor based on at least one of a signal from an optical sensor, a total volume of packages within a zone of the conveyor, and a total number of packages within the package group. An optical sensor (116) generates a tracking signal representative of the location of the receptacle and the controller assigns a pack station [Col. 9:51-67]. After the receptacle has moved the distance needed to reach the assigned pack station, the controller operates the door opening assembly [Col. 12:6-13].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruodis as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Rivers (USPN 3494434).
Regarding Claim(s) 27, Gruodis teaches the transferring of the package group comprises transporting the one or more of the accumulated packages (the discharge of the articles from the receptacle is considered transporting). Gruodis fails to teach the transporting is based on at least one of a signal received from an optical sensor, a total volume of the accumulated packages, or a total number of packages within the zone. Rivers (USPN 3494434) teaches discharging articles from a hopper based on the number of articles in the hopper [Col. 4:4, “upon filling the hopper to a predetermined amount…the balance will swing”]. See also [Col. 5:25-60, “to open the hoper door 120 and discharge the parts” (sic)]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to base the transporting on the total number of packages within the zone. Transporting the package group when a number of packages is reached would ensure the package group has the desired number of packages.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruodis as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (USPN 12037152, having an effectively filed date of February 4, 2021).
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Gruodis teaches the further processing of the package group comprises transferring into a container (42) the plurality of packages of the package group, yet fails to teach an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor, a sensor and a robotic arm that closes the container by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. Bell et al. (USPN 12037152) teaches an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor (3), a sensor (85) and a robotic arm (manipulator 98, see Figure 23) that closes a container (enclosure 65) by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. The container has a slider (78) that is part of a zipper closure [Col. 13:3]. The manipulator has a package-engaging structure (112) that engages the slider to close the container [Col. 16:21-42]. The system is controlled by a computing device having a processor and memory having instructions [Col. 7:52-Col. 8:16]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor, a sensor and a robotic arm that closes the container by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. This would allow automated or semi-automated handling of packages.
Claim(s) 30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al. as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Bell et al.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Boyd et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor, a sensor and a robotic arm, wherein when said package group is conveyed for further processing including transferring into a container the plurality of packages of the package group, said electromechanical system closes the container by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. Bell et al. (USPN 12037152) teaches an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor (3), a sensor (85) and a robotic arm (manipulator 98, see Figure 23) that closes a container (enclosure 65 disclosed as a bag) by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. The container has a slider (78) that is part of a zipper closure [Col. 13:3]. The manipulator has a package-engaging structure (112) that engages the slider to close the container [Col. 16:21-42]. The system is controlled by a computing device having a processor and memory having instructions [Col. 7:52-Col. 8:16]. Bell et al. further teaches transferring packages into the container (from supply system 57 in Figure 19). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an electromechanical system comprising a computer processor, a sensor and a robotic arm, wherein when said package group is conveyed for further processing including transferring into a container the plurality of packages of the package group, said electromechanical system closes the container by the robotic arm controlled by the computer processor based on a stored or communicated information or commands based on input from the sensor. This would allow automated or semi-automated handling of packages.
Regarding Claim(s) 32, Boyd et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the container is a bag with a zipper closure, which is taught by Bell et al. as describe above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a bag with a zipper closure to handle packages as taught by Bell et al. since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 33, Boyd et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the robotic arm comprises a plurality of movement axis. Bell et al. teaches a multi-axis robot [Col. 17:34]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a robotic arm comprising a plurality of movement axis to position the robot arm as desired since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 34, Boyd et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the robotic arm comprises an end effector configured to close the zipper closure. Bell et al. teaches an end effector (112) configured to close the zipper closure (as described above). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an end effector to engage the zipper closure as taught by Bell et al. to close the container since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 35, Boyd et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the electromechanical system further comprises means for positioning the container to facilitate the closure of the container. Bell et al. teaches a package holder (96) to hold the container while the container is closed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a means for positioning the container to hold the container in place during closure as taught by Bell et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31, 36-38, 46 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 11731169, 11969759, 12533712, 12012290, 12312180 are issued patents in the same family as the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights