DETAILED ACTION
1. This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments filed 10/21/2025. Claims 1-24 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 1/23/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 16-22 are processes (methods), and claims 1-15 and 23-24 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 23) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A system for processing containers, comprising:
a conveyor that transports containers;
one or more pick-up zones associated with the conveyor;
at least one ID sensor that obtains sensed data as the conveyor transports the containers(observation);
one or more visual displays for providing visual data ; and
one or more processors to perform operations including:
determining container data based at least on the sensed data,
displaying the container data on the one or more visual displays;
causing the containers to be transported to a corresponding one of the one or more pick-up zones based on the container data; and
causing the containers to be removed from the corresponding one of the one or more pick-up zones.1
Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 23) is directed to a series of steps for processing packages, which is a commercial/legal interaction and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the ID sensor, visual displays, processors, and product processing system are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Further, the pickup zones associated with the conveyor merely describing the field of use of the package processing technology. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The conveyor is considered adding insignificant extra solution activity. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the ID sensor, visual displays, processors, and product processing system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the pickup zones associated with the conveyor merely describing the field of use of the package processing technology. The additional element of conveyor is considered to be well-known in the art, see US 9,599,459 [Col. 6, l. 20-36]. In combination, the additional elements only functions that are merely generic. Thus, claims 1, 16, and 23 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-22, and 24 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 14 introduces the additional element of a screen and claim 15 introduces assorting system both are recited at such a high level to be no more than apply it. Therefore, claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-24are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0265504 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
7. With regards to claim 1, Kim disclosed limitations of,
a conveyor that transports containers (See [0062]-[0064] discussing picking zone and fork lift (conveyor belt). See also [0067] equating other types of mechanisms to move the products such as forklift, cart, dolly, handtruck, conveyor belt, or manually.);
one or more pick-up zones associated with the conveyor (See [0067]-[0068] discussing using a conveyer belt as a transport and the transport to multiple zones. See also [0060] discussing that all zones discussed can be duplicated.);
at least one ID sensor that obtains sensed data as the conveyor transports the containers (See [0053] discussing scanning or reading of a package identifier.);
one or more visual displays for providing visual data (See [0102] discussing the computer having a screen.); and
one or more processors to perform operations including:
determining container data based at least on the sensed data (See [0102] discussing the identification process.);
displaying the container data on the one or more visual displays (See [0107] discussing displaying which cell product A is in.);
causing the containers to be transported to a corresponding one of the one or more pick-up zones based on the container data (See [0067]-[0068] discussing using a conveyer belt as a transport and the transport to multiple zones. See also [0060] discussing that all zones discussed can be duplicated.); and
causing the containers to be removed from the corresponding one of the one or more pick-up zones (See [0070] discussing the transport from the camp zone to ship the package.).
8. With regards to claim 2, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the container data includes sorting instructions for the containers (See [0101] discussing associating the identifier of the sorting with the container. See also [0107].).
9. With regards to claim 3, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the conveyor transports the containers through the one or more pick-up zones and each of the one or more pick-up zones include one of the one or more visual displays that displays the container data for one of the containers located within a corresponding one of the one or more pick-up zones (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker.).
10. With regards to claim 4, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the one of the containers is located within multiple of the one or more pick-up zones and the one of the one or more visual displays of each of the multiple pick-up zones displays the container data2 (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker.).
11. With regards to claim 5, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the one or more visual displays is a single display3 (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker.).
12. With regards to claim 6, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the single display is a scrolling display4 (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker.).
13. With regards to claim 7, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the sensed data identifies product within the containers (See [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database.).
14. With regards to claim 8, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the sensed data further indicates a condition of the product (See [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database and [0081] discussing status indicators associated with the cells.).
15. With regards to claim 9 (similarly claim 21), Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the conveyor transports the containers through the different pick-up zones (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones.) .
16. With regards to claim 10, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the conveyor receives the containers on one side of the at least one sensor and the different pick-up zones are positioned along the conveyor on the opposite side of the at least one sensor (See Fig. 2 and [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones. See also [0059].) .
17. With regards to claim 11 (similarly claim 22), Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the conveyor automatically transports the containers (See Fig. 2 and [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones. See also [0059].).
18. With regards to claim 12, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising one or more container sensors that indicates a location of the containers on the conveyor and indicates when the containers have been removed from the conveyor (See [0053] discussing the multiple types of machines scanning or reading the identifier at different stages. Examiner notes that if a machine doesn’t read or scan a identifier at a location in the sequence, it would inherently have been removed from the sequence.).
19. With regards to claim 13, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the containers are from a delivery and the operations further include receiving delivery data of the containers of the delivery and determining the containers of the delivery that have been received based on the delivery data and the sensed data.
20. With regards to claim 14, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising a screen associated with the one or more processors that visually represents a sorting status of the containers (See [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database and [0081] discussing status indicators associated with the cells.).
21. With regards to claim 15, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein the system is a sorting system for the containers at a customer site and the container data is based the sensed data, the delivery data, and customer data for the customer site (See e.g., [0069]-[0072] discussing the delivery and sorting system.).
22. With regards to claim 16, Kim disclosed limitations of,
receiving delivery data of the delivery (See [0008] discussing receiving order.);
receiving the containers of the delivery (See Fig. 2 depicting inbound zone.);
transporting the containers using a conveyor past at least one ID sensor (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones.);
sensing product data from the containers using the at least one ID sensor (See [0053] discussing scanning or reading of a package identifier, [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database, and [0081] discussing status indicators associated with the cells.); and
visually presenting container data for the containers, wherein the container data is at least based on the product data (See [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker.).
23. With regards to claim 17, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising determining the products of the delivery that have been received by comparing the product data to the delivery data (See [0011] discussing comparing the order identifier with the container identifier after the second sortation process; detect that an exception event has occurred in the second sortation process based on the comparison.).
24. With regards to claim 18, Kim disclosed limitations of,
wherein sensing the product data includes scanning one or more barcodes associated with the containers (See [0053] discussing scanning or reading of a package identifier.).
25. With regards to claim 19, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising receiving customer data and generating the container data based on the delivery data, the customer data, and the product data (See e.g., [0069]-[0072] discussing the delivery and sorting system. See also [0011]-[0012].).
26. With regards to claim 20, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising reporting a sorting status using the sensed data and data from a container sensor (See [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database and [0081] discussing status indicators associated with the cells.).
27. With regards to claim 23, Kim disclosed limitations of,
one or more processors to perform operations (See [0002] discussing the system as a computerized system.) including:
receiving product data from containers on a conveyor sensor (See[0053] discussing scanning or reading of a package identifier, [0094]-[0095] discussing the relational data that can be stored in the database, [0081] discussing status indicators associated with the cells, and [0063]-[0066] discussing transport mechanism like a conveyor belt used to transport items through packing zones.)
receiving customer data associated with the product processing system(See [0008] discussing receiving order.); and
visually presenting container data in one or more pick-up zones associated with the conveyor, wherein the container data is based on at least one of the product data or the customer data (See e.g., [0069]-[0072] discussing the delivery and sorting system and [0107] discussing the visual indicator from a computer to a worker. See also [0011]-[0012]. ).
28. With regards to claim 24, Kim disclosed limitations of,
further comprising generating the container data from based on at least one of the product data or the customer data (See e.g., [0069]-[0072] discussing the delivery and sorting system. See also [0011]-[0012].).
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a practical application by determination and displaying of the claimed container/product data. Examiner disagrees. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP §2106 discussing the case application on collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying data being patent ineligible. Examiner suggest looking at Example 46 and integrating the control of the additional element into the process, because as currently written the conveyor does not have to be moving the containers just associated with the zones.
Applicant argues that [0062] does not teach a conveyor belt. Examiner partially agrees, but the Applicant is responsible for the entire refence that equates a fork lift to a conveyor belt multiple times and the refence more explicitly teaches the limitation in [0064]. Further, Applicant had to read [0064] as it was cited multiple times in the rejection.
Applicant argues that [0053] does not disclose the scanning of the container data while transported by the conveyor for claims 1, 16, and 23. Examiner disagrees. [0053] discloses the scanning of the package during particular stages. [0060] discusses the different stages in relation to the zones. As the packing zone includes the conveyor belt, [0053] disclose products can be scanned there, which is anticipation.
Examiner maintains position.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 Examiner nots that the processor operations as written leave out the interactions with the sensors and conveyor. Examiner suggest looking at Example 46 and its integration of the practical application of the additional elements with the abstract idea.
2 See MPEP §2111.05 discussing nonfunction descriptive material, “These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.” Examiner suggest providing a function for the information displayed.
3 See MPEP §20114 discussing the functional language. Applicants manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus for the prior art.
4 See id.