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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 14-17, 21, 23, 33, 34, 36, 57-59, 61, 66 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims have editing marks at the beginning of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 57-59, 61, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (USP 4,848,590) in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 57, Kelly discloses an object distribution and conveying arrangement (see top of Fig. 1) for distributing and conveying a plurality of objects, said arrangement comprising: an inlet manifold (see Fig. 1; elements generally at the top and where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material) for receiving and conveying the plurality of objects to sorting units (see Fig. 1) for sorting of the plurality of objects, wherein the inlet manifold comprises: one or more feeder inlet (element 11) for feeding the plurality of objects into the inlet manifold, at least two outlets (col. 10, lines 25-27 and elements 15a) for distributing the objects to the sorting units (elements 43 and 46, elements 51 and 56, elements 60 and 65), and a guiding arrangement (element 12a) connecting the one or more feeder inlet (see Figs. 1 and 5; elements 12a and 15a) and the at least two outlets (see Fig. 5), said guiding arrangement being adapted to convey the plurality of objects downwardly and diagonally relative to a horizontal reference plane from the one or more feeder inlet (see Fig. 1; where element 12 feeds at an angle to element 15) downstream to the at least two outlets. Kelly does not explicitly disclose a first outlet of the least two outlets is spaced from a second outlet of the at least two outlets along a vertical axis. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feeding of material because Applicant has not disclosed that the orientation of the feeding outlets provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either feeding outlets because both feeding outlets would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of feeding material into multiple sorting zones.
Regarding claim 58, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement is arranged to convey the plurality of objects in an angle relative to the horizontal reference plane larger than an angle of repose of the plurality of objects such that the plurality of objects are at least partially conveyed by means of gravity (see Fig. 1; element 12).
Regarding claim 59, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement forms a plurality of passages for conveying and distributing the plurality of objects to the at least two outlets (element 14 vibrates items into paths that feed on element 15a).
Regarding claim 61, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement is arranged to convey the objects along a feeding plane, said feeding plane being inclined relative to a horizontal reference plane (see Fig. 1; element 12).
Regarding claim 66, Kelly does not explicitly disclose the outlet manifold is adapted to be releasably connected to the sorting units. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to detach components because Applicant has not disclosed that the outlet manifold being releasably connected provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with detachably components because both manifolds would perform the same function of conveying objects for the purpose of making maintenance of the components more efficient. Furthermore, making elements separable has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 14-17, 21, 23, 33, 34, and 36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses an object sorting system. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious an outlet manifold configured to receive sorted objects from the plurality of sorting units, wherein the outlet manifold comprises a plurality of inlets and at least two separate outlet passages, wherein each inlet of the plurality of inlets of the outlet manifold is configured to receive a respective sorted fraction of objects from the sorting outlet of a respective sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units, and wherein a first separate outlet passage of the at least two separate outlet passages is configured to receive the respective sorted fractions of objects received by at least two inlets of the plurality of inlets associated with at least two different sorting units to combine the respective sorted fractions of objects from the at least two different sorting units in conjunction with the other structures in claim 1.
The closest prior art discloses an object distribution and conveying arrangement. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious first separate outlet passage of the at least two separate outlet passages is configured to receive the respective sorted fractions of objects received by at least two inlets of the plurality of inlets associated with two different sorting units to combine the respective sorted fractions of objects from the at least two different sorting units in conjunction with the other structures in claim 14.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. The vertical spacing of the outlets is not an arbitrary design choice. Rather, it is a critical structural limitation that solves a specific, disclosed spatial problem and enables a highly compact, stacked sorting system - an arrangement that is completely foreign to, and functionally incompatible with, the sorting methodology taught in Kelly,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that each sorting unit comprises a photo detector and blast valve (see Fig. 4) at specific locations with known distances between each detector and valve. As such, in an obvious arrangement like vertically spaced outlets, the main processor (element 71) and analyzing system (element 72) would be able to calculate separation timing to separate items into different receiving bins; therefore, the operability would not be diminished with a different, but obvious, arrangement of the two outlets from the inlet manifold.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” The Office Action suggests that Kelly's main processor 71 and analyzing system 72 could simply be reprogrammed to calculate different separation timings for different heights (Office Action, p. 6). However, this ignores the physical reality of Kelly's mechanical structure. Kelly's guide member 17 must maintain a very steep slope (about 80 degrees) after its initial portion to minimize frictional retardation (Column 5, lines 1 - 10). Introducing multiple vertically spaced feeding outlets would require completely different guide member lengths and physical geometries for each path. This would introduce immense mechanical complexity, require independent calibration for every single path, and dramatically increase the risk of tracking errors. This is the exact problem Kelly seeks to avoid. Indeed, when Kelly addresses sorting along multiple parallel lines, it teaches doing so side-by-side (horizontally spaced), not vertically stacked (Fig. 5; column 10, lines 16-35). Kelly contains no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to stack sorting units vertically or to space feeding outlets vertically,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts Kelly discloses the reasoning for adding multiple lines is to optimize element use so that shared functions for economic reasons; and, therefore, an obvious modification to make the outtlets a vertical orientation would also follow sharing elements for economic reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
