DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
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 3-5, 7, 9, 10, 11-18 and 20 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.
The claims as a whole recite a system (claim 1) as an independent claim, yet bounce between constructions associated with method claims and constructions associated with system claims. The use of passive voice and functional language to recite what could be steps or functions with multiple degrees of separation between structure and function creates confusion as to whether the claim is directed to a system or a method, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the metes and bounds of the claim are for the purpose of determining infringement.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10, 19 and 20 present a less clear approach than commonly used reciting functional language with a system claim (a method claim with steps would be clearer); however, it is possible to identify the metes and bounds, they do not fully rise to the level of indefiniteness necessary for rejection.
Claims 7, 9, and 11-18, however, introduce additional elements combined with passive voice and functional language creating distance between structure and function and which mix a system with method steps, making it unclear which statutory category the claims are direct to and creating confusion about what is positively requires by the claims and when infringement would occur.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “sufficient certainty”. The term “sufficient” is subjective and without bounds defining its limits, makes the scope of the limitation unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims 4 and 5 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon rejected base claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sufficient certainty”. The term “sufficient” is subjective and without bounds defining its limits, makes the scope of the limitation unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 7 recites a generic “remote computing system” and the functional language associated with this remote computing system creates confusion as to when infringement occurs. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system. Does infringement occur upon data storage (locally or remotely or a combination), upon data transmission, when the remote computing system processes the data, or when it performs pallet profiling operations; and does infringement occur individually or in some (or multiple) combination of these steps or the components/system which is performing them? It is unclear when infringement of these limitations would occur, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the model was trained by a remote computing system using a process comprising…” then lists gerunds (steps) of the training process. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system. Is the use of any model trained by a generic “remote computing system” infringement? Or would infringement only apply to the specific method steps of this training process? Would this include or exclude a model trained locally on the edge computing device using the same method steps? It is unclear when infringement of these limitations would occur, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “quantity of items on the pallet”. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, only recites limitations regarding cases on a pallet. Is the term “items” intended to refer to individual items packed within cases? Or is it the quantity of cases on the pallet that is determined? The scope of the limitation is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an API system… configured to perform operations” and “a backend cloud processing system” and lists gerunds (steps) performed by both these systems and a warehouse management system and pallet review system. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system. The high level recitation of generic steps (execute algorithms, provide handling instructions) without any additional detail also makes the range of potential infringement extremely broad. It is unclear when infringement of these limitations would occur, rendering the claim indefinite.
The functional language recited in claim 11 lists data processing steps (abstract idea) along with printed matter (user interface display) without anything more that integrates it into a practical application. In addition, an API is a bridge, a set of rules and protocols which allow software applications to communicate with each other. It is a product that does not have a physical or tangible form (software per se) without structural limitations and therefore is not directed to any of the statutory categories of invention and cannot provide a basis for patentability.
Dependent claims 12-18 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon rejected base claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the operations further comprise”. It is unclear which component is performing said operations and/or which operations are performed by multiple components recited in claim 11, on which claim 12 depends. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system. Is it the data processing conducted by the edge computing device? The API system? The backend cloud processing system? The warehouse management system or the pallet review system? It is unclear what components are performing the functions and when infringement of these limitations would occur, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “wherein a next phase… is executed”. It is unclear which component is performing the phase execution of the multiple components recited in claim 11, on which claim 13 depends or what a phase execution entails. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear what components are performing the functions and when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the API system is further configured to” and lists steps performed during a pallet data collection process. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “until a first milestone is met”. There is no description of what meeting a milestone entails, the citation that milestones vary based on customer/application is not sufficient to define the boundaries of the claim as the description lacks either quantitative or qualitative references points which could delineate between a “met” and “not met” criteria for a milestone, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims 15-18 are rejected as being indefinite due to their dependence upon rejected base claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the API system is further configured to” and lists process steps. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the API system is further configured to” and lists process steps and also recites steps (receiving, extending, creating) for functions of the warehouse management system. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “other data” but there is no description of what constitutes this other data in either the claims or specification, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “until a second milestone is met”. There is no description of what meeting a milestone entails, the citation that milestones vary based on customer/application is not sufficient to define the boundaries of the claim as the description lacks either quantitative or qualitative references points which could delineate between a “met” and “not met” criteria for a milestone, making the scope of the limitation unclear and rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the API system is further configured to” and lists process steps. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “sufficient certainty”. The term “sufficient” is subjective and without bounds defining its limits, makes the scope of the limitation unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the API system is configured to” and lists process steps. The mix of system and method construction combined with the functional language makes it unclear when infringement would occur, whether on a system or a method of using the system, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “sufficient certainty”. The term “sufficient” is subjective and without bounds defining its limits, makes the scope of the limitation unclear, rendering the claims indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 2023/0059103) in view of Sullivan et al. (US 2018/0327196) and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2022/0219846).
In the mapping, base reference Jackson et al. (US 2023/0059103) will be referred to as Jackson et al. 2023. Modifying reference Jackson et al. (US 2022/0219846) will be referred to as Jackson et al. 2022.
Claims 7, 9, and 11-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above as the mix of system and method claim construction causes confusion as to when infringement of the limitations occurs. The functional limitations of these claims recite generic components and functions performed by widely-available commercial software and as currently constructed cannot form a basis for patentability without boundaries defining when infringement occurs, and therefore have not been mapped.
Regarding independent claim 1, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
A system for automatically and optically determining structural integrity and catch weight information for a pallet in a facility, [See at least Abstract, Par. 0024] the system comprising:
a turntable configured to receive the pallet from the conveyor belt and to rotate the pallet; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 14 (turntable), 50 (loaded pallet); Par. 0024, 0030]
at least one imaging device positioned proximate the turntable and configured to capture optical data of the pallet as the turntable rotates the pallet; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 16 (camera); Par. 0030, 0047]
an edge computing device in network communication with the at least one imaging device, wherein the edge computing device is configured to: receive the optical data from the at least one imaging device; [See at least Par. 0047]
process the optical data to determine structural integrity information for the pallet; [See at least Par. 0048]
process the optical data to determine catch weight information for each of the plurality of cases on the pallet; [See at least Par. 0074, 0139, 0153, 0154, 0159 of US 2022/0129836, incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 in Par. 0031] and
For examination purposes, “catch weight” has been construed as an inferred weight (expected weight disclosed by Jackson et al.) calculated from the optical data based on the dimensions, type of item and/or type of packaging, both with or without a measured weight verification step; rather than the more commonly used definition for variable-weight items (such as seafood or packaged meats).
While Jackson et al. 2023 discloses a turntable, camera and processing optical data, Jackson et al. 2023 does not disclose a conveyor belt and routing of the pallet. With respect to these limitations, Sullivan et al., directed to the same technology — palletizing and validation — teaches:
a conveyor belt configured to route a pallet having a plurality of cases in a facility once the pallet is ingested into the facility; [See at least Par. 0029]
determine, based on the structural integrity information and the catch weight information, routing or storage information for the pallet. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0029, 0049, 0104]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson et al. 2023 to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan et al. and combine the conveyor belt and routing of the pallet with the turntable, camera and processing optical data of Jackson et al. 2023. The conveyor belt and routing of the pallet of Sullivan et al. allows direct integration with an automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS), enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the conveyor belt and routing of the pallet of Sullivan et al. with the turntable, camera and processing optical data of Jackson et al. 2023 and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the turntable, camera and processing optical data of Jackson et al. 2023 and the features of the conveyor belt and routing of the pallet of Sullivan et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (palletizing and validation), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Jackson et al. 2023 and Sullivan et al. disclose turntable, camera, processing optical data, and conveyor belt, they do not explicitly disclose a partial enclosure for those elements. With respect to these limitations, Jackson et al. 2022, directed to the same technology — palletizing and validation — teaches:
a partial enclosure configured to enclose the turntable, the at least one imaging device, and at least a portion of the conveyor belt; and [See at least Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 32 (validation station) with partial enclosure (rails) enclosing 67 (turntable), 68 (camera), and at least a portion of entryway 76 (ramp)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson et al. 2023 and Sullivan et al. to incorporate the teachings of Jackson et al. 2022 and combine the partial enclosure with the disclose turntable, camera, processing optical data, and conveyor belt of Jackson et al. 2023 and Sullivan et al. The partial enclosure of Jackson et al. 2022 allows demarcation of moving working areas, improving safety and enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the partial enclosure of Jackson et al. 2022 with the turntable, camera, processing optical data, and conveyor belt of Jackson et al. 2023 and Sullivan et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the turntable, camera, processing optical data, and conveyor belt of Jackson et al. 2023 and Sullivan et al. and the features of the partial enclosure of Jackson et al. 2022 would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jackson et al. 2022 because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (palletizing and validation), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein processing the optical data to determine structural integrity information for the pallet comprises:
selecting an image from the optical data that represents a top-down view of the pallet; [See at least Par. 0047]
processing the selected image to identify each case at the top of the pallet; [See at least Par. 0051]
performing a gap detection process between one or more of the identified cases to identify at least one gap, wherein the gap detection process comprises applying a model to the selected image of the top of the pallet, the model having been trained to identify gaps between cases; [See at least Par. 0027, 0028, 0047-0052]
determining whether the at least one gap exceeds one or more threshold size criteria; [See at least Par. 0057-0059]
While Jackson et al. 2023 discloses gap detection, Jackson et al. 2023 does not disclose routing the pallet. With respect to these limitations, Sullivan et al., teaches what Jackson et al. 2023 lacks:
responsive to determining that the at least one gap exceeds the one or more threshold size criteria, generating and returning instructions to cause an automation computing system to automatically route the pallet to a profile checking station in the facility using the conveyor belt. [See at least Par. 0049-0051, 0104, 0105]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson et al. 2023 to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein processing the optical data to determine catch weight information for each of the plurality of cases on the pallet comprises:
processing the optical data to identify, for each case on the pallet, encoded case information; [See at least Par. 0032]
determining a count indicating a number of cases on the pallet; [See at least Par. 0048, 0069]
determining whether the encoded case information, for each case, is identifiable with sufficient certainty; [See at least Par. 0031-0032, 0073] and
responsive to determining that the encoded case information is identifiable with sufficient certainty, [See at least Par. 0020 of US 2022/0129836, incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 in Par. 0031] determining a catch weight for each case based on the encoded case information. [See at least Par. Par. 0074, 0139, 0153, 0154, 0159 of US 2022/0129836, incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 in Par. 0031]
Regarding claim 4, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 3, further comprising:
determining a quantity of the plurality of cases having determined catch weight information and a quantity of the plurality of cases having undetermined catch weight information; [See at least Par. 0134-0139 of US 2022/0129836, incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 in Par. 0031]
determining whether the quantity of the plurality of cases having determined catch weight information satisfies a threshold quantity of cases on the pallet; ; [See at least Par. 0134-0139 of US 2022/0129836, incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 in Par. 0031] and
While Jackson et al. 2023 discloses determining a quantity of cases and comparing thresholds, Jackson et al. 2023 does not disclose routing the pallets. With respect to these limitations, Sullivan et al., teaches what Jackson et al. 2023 lacks:
generating and returning the routing information, based on a determination that the quantity of the plurality of cases having determined catch weight information satisfies the threshold quantity, to an automated computing system that is configured to automatically control the conveyor belt to route the pallet to a predetermined storage location in the facility. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0029, 0049, 0104]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson et al. 2023 to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 3, further comprising:
responsive to determining that the encoded case information is not identifiable with sufficient certainty, flagging at least one case for manual checking and indicating a location of the flagged at least one case on the pallet; [See at least Par. 0076] and
generating and returning a notification to check the flagged at least one case at the indicated location on the pallet to an automation computing system that is configured to control the conveyor belt to automatically route the pallet to a pallet checking station in the facility. [See at least Par. 0065-0070]
For examination purposes, the QC station and check area of Jackson et al. has been construed as equivalent to the pallet checking station. The instant’s automating routing to the station falls within automating a manual activity [See MPEP 2144.04(III)] and is not sufficient on its own to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein processing the optical data to determine structural integrity information for the pallet or catch weight information for the pallet comprises:
detecting a label on the pallet, identifying the pallet based at least in part on processing the identified label, [See at least Par. 0031, 0032] and
determining whether a physical structure of the pallet satisfies one or more safety criteria to move the pallet in the facility using the conveyor belt. [See at least Par. 0054]
For examination purposes, safety criteria to move the pallet has been construed to be equivalent to the stability and turntable rate determined by Jackson et al., where the safe rate of movement is identified based on physical structure of the pallet, as equivalent considerations would be taken for linear (conveyor belt) or rotational (turntable) movement.
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan et al. teaches what Jackson et al. 2023 lacks:
The system of claim 1, wherein the edge computing device is further configured to:
apply a model to the optical data of the pallet to identify at least one damaged case on the pallet; [See at least Par. 0039, 0040, 0049]
determine whether the identified at least one damaged case satisfies one or more threshold damage criteria; [See at least Par. 0049, 0051, 0104, 0105] and
responsive to determining that the identified at least one damaged case satisfies the one or more threshold damage criteria, generate and return instructions to an automation computing system to control the conveyor belt to automatically route the pallet to a profile checking station in the facility. [See at least Par. 0049, 0051, 0104, 0105]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jackson et al. 2023 to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan et al. as discussed above, see claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the optical data comprises image data of sides, top, and bottom surfaces of the pallet, [See at least Par. 0030, 0047] and the edge computing device is further configured to:
apply one or more machine learning trained models to the image data to stitch together the image data of the sides, the top, and the bottom surfaces of the pallet; [See at least Par. 0007, 0089-0100], and
determine, based on processing the stitched-together image data of the pallet, at least one of: a height of the pallet, damage to the pallet, lean of the pallet, contents of the pallet, number of rows on the pallet, and quantity of items on the pallet. [See US 2022/0129836 at least Par. 0064, 0074, 0087, 0091, 0094-0098, 0133; this reference is incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 (Jackson et al.) in Par. 0031]
Regarding claim 19, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the optical data comprises a plurality of images of the pallet that are captured at predetermined deltas of degree movement of the pallet as the pallet is rotated on the turntable, [See at least Par. 0030, 0047] wherein processing the optical data comprises:
processing each of the plurality of images to determine a confidence level for reading a unique identifier on the pallet; [See US 2022/0129836 at least Par. 0020, 0021, 0094, 0095; this reference is incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 (Jackson et al.) in Par. 0031]
selecting an image amongst the plurality of images having the highest confidence level; [See US 2022/0129836 at least Par. 0020, 0021, 0094, 0095; this reference is incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 (Jackson et al.) in Par. 0031] and
determining the structural integrity information and the catch weight information for the pallet based on processing the selected image. [See at least Par. 0048]
For examination purposes, under BRI, images captured at predetermined deltas of degree of movement of the pallet as it rotates encompasses taking images of each side of the pallet as it rotates on the turntable.
Regarding claim 20, Jackson et al. 2023 discloses:
The system of claim 19, further comprising selecting the image amongst the plurality of images having checksums that satisfy one or more checksum rules. [See US 2022/0129836 at least Fig. 26; Par. 0146; this reference is incorporated in its entirety into US 2023/0059103 (Jackson et al.) in Par. 0031]
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights