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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered July 27, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed May 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-16, 21, 24-29 are pending. Claim(s) 2, 6, 9, 17-20, 22, 23 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 11, 15, 21 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 24-29 is/are newly presented.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
In the Office Action of May 27, 2026, previous claim 22 was indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Upon further review, the subject matter of previous claim 22 is considered to be taught by the prior art. A rejection appears below.
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) 11-16, 28, 29 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”], wherein the first conveyor system is configured to move the plurality of packages in a first direction (the direction of movement of belt 105). 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, the second conveyor system is configured to move the plurality of packages in a second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall. 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 conveyor of McClelland is configured to move a plurality of articles in a direction that is perpendicular to the sidewalls of the chute. Both Mohammed and McClelland teaches conveyors that are perpendicular to respective chutes. Therefore, a second conveyor system that is perpendicular to the chute would be parallel to the first conveyor system and the direction that articles are moved by the second conveyor would be perpendicular to the sidewalls of the chute. 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, the second conveyor system is configured to move the plurality of packages in a second direction, and wherein the second direction is perpendicular with respect to the at least one sidewall 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) 28, Mohammed teaches the gate assembly further includes a base frame (frame 310 in Figure 3) having a front member, a rear frame member, and a support member disposed between the front frame member and the rear frame member. Figure 3 shows the frame having a front frame member, a rear frame member and a support member (see annotated sheet).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Mohammed teaches a computer (“computer vision systems”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 21, 24-27 are allowed.
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 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
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 9/29/2026
Prosecution Insights