Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/476,242

CROSS-BELT SORTER SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 27, 2023
Examiner
SINGH, KAVEL
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Lewco Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1298 resolved
+31.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1327
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.0%
+5.0% vs TC avg
§102
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1298 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/25/2025. Applicant argues that it would not be a serious burden to examine inventions I and II since the claims are similar. Applicant does not take into account of the examination of claims 9-14, the dependent claims which are not similar to the claims 2-7. Also, the fact that the invention groups are known to be combination and subcombination as they are sorter systems having distinct details therefore creating a serious burden in searching and being separate invention utility. For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand restricted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1,2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto U.S. Patent No. 5,701,992. Claim 1, Enomoto teaches a sorter system 3 for sorting a package, the sorter system 3 comprising: a frame 10 with frame sides 9 extending from a proximal end to a distal end Figs. 1and 4; a track at 32 disposed between the frame sides 9 in a looped configuration between the proximal end to the distal end Fig. 5; a plurality of carriages 1 disposed on the track at 32, each carriage 1 comprising; a belt drive motor 18 connected to a belt drive shaft of 18; a belt drive roller of 18; first and second belt support rollers 15a,b Fig. 7; a belt 16 disposed around the belt drive roller of 18, the first belt support roller 15a, and the second belt support roller 15b Fig. 7; and first and second power receivers 23 configured to direct power to the belt drive motor 18; a carriage power system 38 including a plurality of circuit boards (as known in control systems) each including a first power strip 32 and a second power strip 32, the first power strip 32 being configured to contact the first power receiver 23 of the carriage 1 passing thereon and the second power strip 32 being configured to contact the second power receiver 23 of the carriage 1 passing thereon C4 L25-67; and a belt controller system 41 configured to generate a control signal to selectively power the first or second power strip 32 of one of the circuit boards; wherein the belt drive motors 18 rotate the belt 16 in a first direction when powered by a first power and rotate the belt 16 in a second direction when powered by a second power C3 L5-20; C3 L35-45. Claim 2, Enomoto teaches a plurality of chutes 4B disposed on each side of the conveying surface of 16 Fig. 4. Claim 4, Enomoto teaches the first and second power receivers 23 are roller bearings C3 L45-65. Claim 6, Enomoto teaches each belt drive roller 15a,b of 18 includes an outer circumference and a belt receiving channel (between roller and roller shaft as known on conveyor roller assemblies), the belt receiving channel configured to receive a drive connector coupling the belt drive roller 15a and the belt drive shaft of 18, and the outer circumference having a diameter larger than a diameter of the belt receiving channel(between roller and roller shaft as known on conveyor roller assemblies) Fig. 7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto U.S. Patent No. 5,701,992 in view of Kalouche U.S. Patent No. 10,940,999. Claim 3, Enomoto does not teach as Kalouche teaches the belt controller system 104 is remote from the carriages C8 L30-40. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Enomoto with the control system taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success because Claim 5, Enomoto teaches each carriage 1 with electrically connecting the first power receiver 23 and the belt drive motor 18, but does not teach as Kalouche teaches further comprises a first power takeup and a second power takeup electrically connecting the first power receiver and the belt drive motor 18; wherein the first and second power takeups are conductive brushes CC10 L25-55. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Enomoto with the circuit system taught in Kalouche with a reasonable expectation of success because Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto U.S. Patent No. 5,701,992. Claim 7, Enomoto teaches the carriages 1 have a width and the belts 16 have a width, but does not specify the width of the carriage of about 6 inches and the width of the belt of about 5 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to specify the carriage and belt widths to optimize it ito the article being transported. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm. 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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. /KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 KS
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589944
TRAY FOR PHYSICAL DISTRIBUTION SORTER AND ARTICLE SORTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583683
Method of Making Positive Drive Conveyor Belt
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583686
ROLLER-AND-RAIL CARGO HANDLING SYSTEM WITH PALLET-MOVING TROLLEY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577057
VERTICALLY ADJUSTABLE SORTATION DEVICES AND SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577052
CERAMIC ABLATION-RESISTANT CONVEYOR BELT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1298 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month