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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 15, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed September 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-23 are pending. Claim(s) 2, 6, 9 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 11, 17 is/are currently amended.
The objections to the specification presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Claim(s) 11 and 17, applicant argues the claims are allowable because the added language was the indicated allowable subject matter in the parent application. However, the applied prior art of Mohammed and McClelland was not cited in the parent application. Applicant has not presented arguments as to how the amended claims overcome the applied prior art.
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 21-23 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the first direction” and “the second direction”. As the claim has not defined a first direction and a second direction, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the second direction”. As the claim has not defined a second direction, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the first direction” and “the second direction”. As the claim has not defined a first direction and a second direction, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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) 11-18, 20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed (USPN 11027923) in view of McClelland (USPN 3064783).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Mohammed teaches a system for automatically sorting, tracking, and dispensing packages, the system comprising: a gate assembly including a plurality of chutes (120), each chute of the plurality of chutes includes an inclined surface [Col. 2:63, “chute 120 includes one or more surfaces that are arranged at a decline”], at least one sidewall (315) extending vertically from the inclined surface and is configured to receive one or more groups of packages of a plurality of packages (Figure 3B shows three packages on a chute) and including a gate (flap 125) and an actuator [Col. 1:63, “an actuator can rotate the flap”] configured to move the gate relative to the inclined surface and at least one sidewall between a first position and a second position; a first conveyor system (conveyor belt 105) configured to dispense the plurality of packages to the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly; one or more sensors (detectors 405A, 405B, 405C, also [Col. 4:19-21, “computer vision systems or barcode scanners for reading address information”]) configured to sense a characteristic of each group of the one or more groups of the plurality of packages and produce one or more signals [Col. 8:31-33, “various detectors…to provide input to the sorter controller”]; and an electronic controller (warehouse management system 150) configured to receive the one or more signals from the one or more sensors [Col. 4:15, “controller 165 can control…the accumulator flap 125”; Col. 8:64, “detector 405C informs the sorter controller…and in response, the controller can activate the flap”], wherein, when the gate is in the first position, the one or more groups of packages are held within the respective chute of the plurality of chutes [Col 3:19-22, “changing the position of the flap 125 to a more vertical position permits the chute 120 to accumulate packages until a human associate, robot, or machine places a new container at the end of the chute 120”], and, when the gate is moved from the first position to the second position, the one or more groups of packages are released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes via gravity [Col. 8:3-13, “chute 120A has a deactivated flap 125A where the flap is in a declined position to permit packages diverted from the belt 105 onto the chute 120A to slide off the flap 125A and into the container 130A”]. Mohammed fails to teach the sidewall extends from an upper end to a lower end of the inclined surface; a second conveyor system that is configured to receive the one or more groups of packages that are dispensed from the plurality of chutes, and wherein the second conveyor system is parallel with respect to the first conveyor system. McClelland (USPN 3064783) teaches a chute (10) including an inclined surface (23) and having sidewalls (39,40) feeding to a conveyor system (belt conveyor 11) configured to receive a plurality of articles (76) that are selectively dispensed from the chute (by gate 14), the conveyor system includes a conveyor belt (11) that is perpendicular to the chute. The chutes of Mohammed are perpendicular to the conveyor belt. Therefore, a second conveyor system that is perpendicular to the chute would be parallel to the first conveyor system. Further, the sidewalls extend vertically from the inclined surface from an upper end to a lower end of the inclined surface (as seen in Figure 1). 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 second conveyor system that is configured to receive the one or more groups of packages that are dispensed from the plurality of chutes; and wherein the second conveyor system is parallel with respect to the first conveyor system 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. The second conveyor system would transport the packages to a destination per the known use of conveyors in the art. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to extend the sidewall from the upper end to a lower end in order to contain the packages on the inclined surface.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Mohammed teaches the electronic controller is further configured to selectively control each actuator of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly based on the signals received from the one or more sensors [Col. 8:64 , “the detector 405C informs the sorter controller that the container is being removed, and in response, the controller can activate the flap to begin buffering the packages”].
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Mohammed teaches a destination (“address information”).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Mohammed teaches a barcode scanner (as described above).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Mohammed teaches the electronic controller is further configured to track the one or more groups of packages of the plurality of packages along the conveyor system (package is tracked by controller 165 and package tracker 170, Col. 4:9-42), but fails to teach the electronic controller is further configured to track the one or more groups of packages of the plurality of packages along second conveyor system. McClelland teaches the second conveyor system (as described above). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to track each package on the second conveyor system in order to maintain a record of the location of each package.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Mohammed teaches a bagging system (container 130).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Mohammed teaches a method for sorting, tracking, and dispensing packages, the method comprising: moving one or more gates (flap 125) of a gate assembly to a first position; transporting a plurality of packages along a first conveyor system (conveyor belt 105); dispensing the plurality of packages into a plurality of chutes (120) of the gate assembly having an inclined surface [Col. 2:63, “chute 120 includes one or more surfaces that are arranged at a decline”] and at least one sidewall (315) that extends vertically such that a group of packages of the plurality of packages is held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes by the respective gate in the first position [abstract, “flap serves as a stop to prevent packages”] (Figure 3 shows three packages held in a chute) and the at least one sidewall [Col. 6:30-39, “the sides 31, the flap 125, and the bottom surface of the chutes…defines surfaces that form the accumulation area 305”]; and moving the one or more gates of the gate assembly relative to the inclined surface and at least one sidewall to a second position based on signals from one or more sensors (detectors 405A, 405B, 405C, also [Col. 4:19-21, “computer vision systems or barcode scanners”]) such that the group of packages is released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes via gravity (packages fall into container 130) [Col. 8:3-13, “chute 120A has a deactivated flap 125A where the flap is in a declined position to permit packages diverted from the belt 105 onto the chute 120A to slide off the flap 125A and into the container 130A”]. Mohammed fails to teach the sidewall extends from an upper end to a lower end of the inclined surface and fails to teach transporting the group of packages along a second conveyor system, and wherein the second conveyor system is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall. McClelland (USPN 3064783) teaches transporting articles (76) along a conveyor belt (belt conveyor 11) of a conveyor system (into or out of the page, as seen in Figure 1), wherein the conveyor system is perpendicular with respect to at least one sidewall (39,40) of a chute (10), the belt conveyor (11) appearing to be perpendicular to the chute (10). Further, the sidewall extends from an upper end to a lower end of an inclined surface (23). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to transport the group of packages along a second conveyor system, and wherein the second conveyor system is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall. The second conveyor system would transport the packages received from the chute to a destination per the known use of conveyors in the art. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to extend the sidewall from the upper end to a lower end in order to contain the packages on the inclined surface.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Mohammed teaches tracking the group of packages of the plurality of packages, via the one or more sensors, along the first conveyor system (conveyor belt 105) (package is tracked by controller 165 and package tracker 170, Col. 4:9-42). See also [Col. 4:43-Col. 6:20], which described the control method used. Mohammed fails to teach tracking the group of packages of the plurality of packages, via the one or more sensors, along the second conveyor system. McClelland teaches the second conveyor system (as described above). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to track each package on the second conveyor system in order to maintain a record of the location of each package.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Mohammed teaches the one or more sensors are configured to sense a characteristic of each package of the plurality of packages, and wherein the characteristic is one or more of: a priority; a destination; a class; a size; or a weight. At Col. 4:19, Mohammed discloses reading a destination (“address information”) by a computer vision system.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first direction is parallel with respect to the second direction. The chutes of Mohammed are perpendicular to the first direction of the first conveyor belt. Further, McClelland teaches a conveyor belt receiving articles from a chute that is perpendicular to the conveyor belt. Therefore, a second conveyor system moving in a direction that is perpendicular to the chute would be parallel to the first direction of the first conveyor system. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first direction to be parallel to the second direction as engineering expedient. Using elements that are parallel and perpendicular would simplify layout of the system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of McClelland as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ernst (USPN 2868245).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Mohammed teaches controlling a bagging system (containers 130), based on signals received from the one or more sensors, that is configured to receive the plurality of packages from the gate assembly. See also [Col. 4:43-Col. 6:20], which described the control method used. Mohammed fails to teach the bagging system is configured to receive the plurality of packages from the second conveyor system. Ernst (USPN 2868245) teaches a bagging system (sack C) configured to receive objects from a conveyor (belt T), which receives objects from chute (chute P). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control a bagging system that is configured to receive the plurality of packages from a second conveyor system to ensure the package are directed to the proper destination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10 are allowed.
Claims 21 and 22 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the gate assembly including a base frame having a front frame member, a rear frame member, and a support frame member disposed between the front frame member and the rear frame member, the actuator attached to the support frame member of the base frame and the gate moveable between the front frame member and the rear frame member, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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