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 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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Costanzo et al. US 2022/0297160.
See the three attached annotated drawing sheets of Costanzo et al. depicting the rejected claim features.
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) 2-4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costanzo et al. US 2022/0297160.
Costanzo et al. teach the claimed features as outlined in the above 102 rejection. Costanzo et al. fail to teach the following design features:
Claim 2, the receptacle having sidewalls configured to extend over the chute to define a sorting path. Instead, Costanzo et al. has sidewalls on his chute to define their sorting path.
Claims 3 and 7, the receptacle having a trapezoidal shape. Instead, Costanzo et al. has a square shape.
Claims 4 and 8, the receptacles opposing end walls are angled at 10 degrees relative to a lateral direction. Instead, Costanzo et al. teach his end walls to be parallel.
In each of the above instances, it would have been an obvious design choice as to the shape, angle, sidewall location of a particular feature in a device and the mere claiming of a variation in such design features, furthermore, the applicant has not disclosed that such features solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well without such design features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Method Claims 12-18 are allowed because the prior art of record does not teach “landing an item from the chute into the movable receptacle while the receptacle is moving. Claims 5 and 9 are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-6915. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8-6.
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.
/DOUGLAS A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
DAH
January 22, 2026