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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 25, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered July 25, 2025 in response to an Office Action mailed May 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-23 are pending. Claim(s) 2, 6, 9 is/are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), applicant argues the originally filed specification and drawings provide support for claimed subject matter, namely the upper edge of the sidewall of the chute being disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt. Applicant points to Figure 3 as providing the support and amends the specification to further describe the subject matter. However, this argument is unpersuasive. Applicant argues the upper edge of the sidewalls is disposed entirely below the tilt-tray conveyor. This is insufficient as the specification does not provide a complete description of the tilt-tray conveyor. All parts of the tilt-tray conveyor are not described and shown. Figure 3 also shows structure that is below the chute sidewall, but does not describe the structure; therefore, it is impossible to ascertain if the upper edge of the sidewalls of the chute are disposed entirely below tilt-tray conveyor. Further, the language of the claim requires the upper edge of the sidewall be disposed below the "first conveyor belt", but the applicant is arguing the sidewalls are below the tilt-tray conveyor. Applicant does not present any arguments toward a conveyor belt or point to any disclosure of a conveyor belt. In view of the above, the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant's arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant argues the modification of Mohammed, namely the lowering of the upper edge of the sidewall of the chute, would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of holding packages within an accumulation area. However, lowering the upper edge of the sidewall would not prevent packages from being accumulated within the chute, but would rather change the degree to which packages are accumulated. The sidewalls of Mohammed would continue to perform their intended purpose of holding packages within the accumulation area. Applicant further argues that packages would bounce off a second conveyor if a second conveyor were placed under the chutes. However, applicant provides no evidence that such an event would occur. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145. Applicant further argues McClelland fails to teach a first and second conveyor. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather, what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145. Mohammed teaches a conveyor system (105) feeding articles to a chute (120), the chute having a gate (125) and sidewalls (315). McClelland teaches a conveyor (11) being fed from a chute (10), the chute having a gate (14) for accumulating articles on the chute. The chute of McClelland also has sidewalls (39, 40) and the conveyor of McClelland is perpendicular to the sidewalls of the chute. The chutes of Mohammed and McClelland therefore have a similar structure of having a gate and sidewalls. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Mohammed in view of McClelland by providing a second conveyor system to take packages away from a chute that has been fed packages by a first conveyor. Using a conveyor allows for automatic transportation of packages to a desired destination. In view of the above, the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first conveyor belt and second conveyor belt must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 amendment filed July 25, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the language “first sidewall 126a includes an uppermost edge 160a that is disposed entirely below the tilt tray conveyor 210. The remaining sidewalls 126b, 126c, 126d, 126e, also include uppermost edges 160b, 160c, 160d, 160e that are disposed entirely below the tilt tray conveyor 210” is not supported by the original disclosure. The drawings do not show enough detail of the tilt tray conveyor to support the assertion that the upper edges of the sidewalls are disposed entirely below the tilt tray conveyor.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 7, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first conveyor that includes a first conveyor belt that is configured to move in a first direction”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1 recites “each chute of the plurality of chutes includes at least one sidewall having an upper edge that is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1 recites “a second conveyor having a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a second conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. The specification discloses a conveyor section (330) that appears to be perpendicular to the gate assembly (102), but does not disclose the conveyor section includes a conveyor belt. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 11 recites “a first conveyor system that includes a first conveyor belt”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one sidewall has an upper edge that is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 11 recites “a second conveyor system…that includes a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a second conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. The specification discloses a conveyor section (330) that appears to be perpendicular to the gate assembly (102), but does not disclose the conveyor section includes a conveyor belt. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 17 recites “a first conveyor belt of a first conveyor system in a first direction”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one sidewall is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a first conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 17 recites “a second conveyor belt of a second conveyor system in a second direction”. This recitation is not supported by the original specification. The specification fails to disclose a second conveyor belt; therefore, the specification cannot support the claim limitation. The specification discloses a conveyor section (330) that appears to be perpendicular to the gate assembly (102), but does not disclose the conveyor section includes a conveyor belt. This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 19, 12-16, 18-23 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1, 3-5, 7, 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) 1, Mohammed teaches a system for automatically sorting and dispensing packages, the system comprising: a first conveyor system having a first conveyor that includes a first conveyor belt (conveyor belt 105) that is configured to move in a first direction (the conveyor belt moves in a direction as seen in Figure 1); a gate assembly including a plurality of chutes (chutes 120), each chute of the plurality of chutes includes at least one sidewall (sides 315) having an upper edge, and is configured to receive a group of packages of a plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the first conveyor system (Figure 3 shows three packages) and including a gate (flap 125) and an actuator [Col. 1:63, “an actuator can rotate the flap”] configured to move the gate between a first position and a second position; 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 the group of packages 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 and to selectively control each actuator of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly based on the one or more signals received 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 group of packages is held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes (as seen in Figure 3), and, when the gate is moved from the first position to the second position, the group of packages is released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes into the containers (130) via gravity [Col. 2:61, “package 115 slides down the chute 120 until falling into the 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 upper edge of the sidewall is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt, a second conveyor system configured to receive the plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly or that the at least two packages are released onto the second conveyor, wherein the second conveyor system includes a second conveyor having a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the at least one sidewall and the second conveyor belt is configured to receive the group of packages dispensed from the chutes of the gate assembly. McClelland (USPN 3064783) teaches a chute (10) 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 having a conveyor belt (11) that is configured to move in a direction that is perpendicular to the sidewall and the conveyor belt is configured to receive the articles dispensed from the chute. 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 configured to receive the plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly or that the at least two packages are released onto the second conveyor, wherein the second conveyor system includes a second conveyor having a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the at least one sidewall and the second conveyor belt is configured to receive the group of packages dispensed from the chutes of the gate assembly 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. Regarding the upper edge of the sidewall, the upper edge of the sidewall of Mohammed appears to be below the upper run of the first conveyor belt but below the lower run of the first conveyor belt (as seen in Figure 4B). However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed arrangement, 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 sidewall such that the upper edge is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt as engineering expedient. The sidewall would continue to maintain packages on the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Mohammad teaches a destination (“address information”).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Mohammed teaches the one or more sensors includes sensors that are arranged along each of the first conveyor system (Figure 4B, detector 405A), the gate assembly (Figure 4B, detector 405B), and the containers (Figure 4B, 405C). Mohammed fails to teach the second conveyor system, which is taught by McClelland. 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 sensors arranged along the second conveyor system to track packages.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Mohammed teaches a barcode scanner (as described above).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above and teaches tracking the packages (as described above), yet fails to teach the electronic controller is further configured to detect or track each package of the plurality of packages 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) 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 at least one sidewall (315) 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 between a first position and a second position; a first conveyor system (conveyor belt 105) that includes a first conveyor belt (belt 105) configured to move in a first direction and 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 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 that includes a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction; wherein the at least one sidewall has an upper edge that is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt, and wherein the second direction is parallel with respect to the first direction. McClelland (USPN 3064783) teaches a chute (10) 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 configured to move in a direction that is perpendicular to the chute. The chutes of Mohammed are perpendicular to the first direction of the first 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. 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 that includes a second conveyor belt that is configured to move in a second direction; and wherein the second direction is parallel with respect to the first direction 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. Regarding the upper edge of the sidewall, the upper edge of the sidewall of Mohammed appears to be below the upper run of the first conveyor belt but below the lower run of the first conveyor belt (as seen in Figure 4B). However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed arrangement, 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 sidewall such that the upper edge is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt as engineering expedient. The sidewall would continue to maintain packages on the chute.
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 belt (conveyor belt 105) of a first conveyor system in a first direction; dispensing the plurality of packages into a plurality of chutes (120) of the gate assembly having at least one sidewall (315) 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 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 transporting the group of packages along a second conveyor belt of a second conveyor system in a second direction, wherein the at least one sidewall is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall. McClelland (USPN 3064783) teaches a transporting articles (76) along a conveyor belt (belt conveyor 11) of a conveyor system in a direction (into or out of the page, as seen in Figure 1), wherein the second direction is perpendicular to 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). 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 belt of a second conveyor system in a second direction, and wherein the second direction 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. Regarding the location of the sidewall, the upper edge of the sidewall of Mohammed appears to be below the upper run of the first conveyor belt but below the lower run of the first conveyor belt (as seen in Figure 4B). However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed arrangement, 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 sidewall such that the sidewall is disposed entirely below the first conveyor belt as engineering expedient. The sidewall would continue to maintain packages on the chute.
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) 21, 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the second direction is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall. McClelland teaches a conveyor belt (11) moving in a direction that is perpendicular to the sidewall of the chute (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 arrange the second direction to be perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall as engineering expedient. Using elements that are parallel and perpendicular would simplify layout of the 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) 8, 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of McClelland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ernst (USPN 2868245).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a bagging system configured to receive the group 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 provide a bagging system configured to receive the group of packages from the second 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 could move packages and provide a further accumulation surface.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the electronic controller is further configured to control an operation of the bagging system based on signals received from the one or more sensors. However, Mohammed teaches controlling an operation of the system based on signal received from sensors (as described); therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the electronic controller to control an operation of the bagging system based on signals received from the one or more sensors in the same manner as the rest of the system. Providing electronic control would allow tracking of the packages as well as automatic sorting.
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.
Conclusion
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