DETAILED ACTION
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 and Claim Objection (informality)
Claims 29-55 are currently being examined. Claims 1-28 were canceled in a Preliminary Amendment.
Is dependent claim 37 intentionally written to duplicate dependent claim 33?
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 30, 34-36, 38, 40, 44-49, and 53-55. Therefore, the “destination conveyor”, “conveyor circuit”, and “kicker assembly” must be shown on the drawings, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification and Objections
The Specification is objected to because the “destination conveyor”, “kicker assembly”, and “conveyor circuit” are neither disclosed nor otherwise described in any detail whatsoever in the Specification. Furthermore, none of the phrases set forth above are associated with specific reference numerals or shown on the drawings. The Specification identifies a “box kicker”, but not a “kicker assembly”. The Specification also identifies different “conveyors” without distinguishing or associating them in any manner with a “conveyor circuit”. Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 29, 32-38, 42, 46-49, and 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 29, the phrase “…an object may be presented…” implies that there is an option as to whether an object is or is not presented. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 29 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to dependent claims 32, 42, and 51, each claim has a limitation that includes the phrase “the carriage” that lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders each claim indefinite.
With respect to claims 38, 47, and 48, each claim has a limitation that includes the phrase “the remaining destination containers” that lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders each claim indefinite.
With respect to dependent claims 36, 46, and 55, each claim has a limitation that includes the phrase “actively biased”. The Specification does not describe, refer to, or provide any meaning whatsoever to the phrase “actively biased”. Furthermore, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 33-35, 37, and 52-54 are rejected on the basis of being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Further provided, however, that any Drawing objections, Specification objections, and 35 USC § 112 (b) rejections set forth hereinabove for the claims must be satisfactorily resolved.
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 29-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13, 16, 26-28, 30, 33, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,557. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘557 patent discloses the following with respect to the Applicant’s claims:
29. An object processing system including an input conveyor in communication with a plurality of processing stations, each processing station comprising: (See Claim 1)
an input area at which an object may be presented, (See Claim 1)
the input area being in communication with the input conveyor; (See Claim 1)
a programmable motion device proximate the input area, (See Claim 1)
said programmable motion device including an end-effector for grasping and moving the object; and (See Claim 1)
a movable carrier for receiving the object from the end-effector of the programmable motion device and for moving the object toward a selected destination container, (See Claim 1)
the selected destination container being provided among a plurality of destination containers, (See Claim 1)
each of the plurality of destination containers being positioned at a container elevation below a carrier elevation of the movable carrier, and (See Claim 1)
the movable carrier including an actuation mechanism for discharging the object from the movable carrier into the selected destination container. (See Claim 1)
30. The object processing system of claim 29, wherein the input area of each processing station includes a processing station conveyor circuit that includes different paths from and to the input conveyor that is in communication with the plurality of processing stations. (See Claim 6)
31. The object processing system of claim 29, wherein each processing station includes a diverter that selectively diverts bins including objects toward the input area. (See Claim 2)
32. The object processing system of claim 29, wherein the actuation mechanism of each carrier of each processing station causes the carriage to tip toward the selected destination container. (See Claim 3)
33. The object processing system of claim 29, wherein each processing station further includes a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers. (See Claim 7)
34. The object processing system of claim 29, wherein the destination containers of each processing station are provided on a destination conveyor that is biased urging the destination containers to an end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 8)
35. The object processing system of claim 34, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is biased by gravity to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 8)
36. The object processing system of claim 34, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is actively biased to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 8)
37. The object processing system of claim 34, wherein each processing station further includes a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers. (See Claim 8)
38. The object processing system of claim 37, wherein the removal system of each processing station includes a kicker assembly for urging the destination container off of a destination conveyor onto an output conveyor, (See Claim 28)
the output conveyor leading away from the remaining destination containers. (See Claim 28)
39. An object processing system including an input conveyor in communication with a plurality of processing stations, each processing station comprising: (See Claim 9)
a programmable motion device proximate an input area that is in communication with the input conveyor, (See Claim 9)
said programmable motion device including an end-effector for grasping and moving an object from the input area; (See Claim 9)
a movable carrier for receiving the object from the end-effector of the programmable motion device and for moving the object toward a selected destination container, (See Claim 9)
the selected destination container being provided among a plurality of destination containers, and (See Claim 9)
the movable carrier including an actuation mechanism for discharging the object into the selected destination container; and (See Claim 9)
a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers. (See Claim 9)
40. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein the input area of each processing station includes a processing station conveyor circuit that includes different paths from and to the input conveyor that is in communication with the plurality of processing stations. (See claim 16)
41. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein each processing station includes a diverter that selectively diverts bins including objects toward the input area. (See Claim 10)
42. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein the actuation mechanism of each carrier of each processing station causes the carriage to tip toward the selected destination container. (See Claim 9)
43. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein each processing station further includes a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers. (See Claim 27)
44. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein the destination containers of each processing station are provided on a destination conveyor that is biased urging the destination containers to an end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 28)
45. The object processing system of claim 44, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is biased by gravity to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 28)
46. The object processing system of claim 44, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is actively biased to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 28)
47. The object processing system of claim 39, wherein the removal system of each processing station includes a kicker assembly for urging the destination container off of a destination conveyor onto an output conveyor, (See Claim 13)
the output conveyor leading away from the remaining destination containers. (See Claim 13)
48. An object processing system including an input conveyor in communication with a plurality of processing stations, each processing station comprising: (See Claim 9)
a programmable motion device proximate an input area that is in communication with the input conveyor, (See Claim 9)
said programmable motion device including an end-effector for grasping and moving an object from the input area; (See Claim 9)
a movable carrier for receiving the object from the end-effector of the programmable motion device and for moving the object toward a selected destination container, (See Claim 9)
the selected destination container being provided among a plurality of destination containers on a destination conveyor; and (See Claim 9)
a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers, (See Claim 9)
the removal system including a kicker assembly for urging the destination container off of the destination conveyor onto an output conveyor, (See Claim 9)
the output conveyor leading away from the remaining destination containers. (See Claim 9)
49. The object processing system of claim 48, wherein the input area of each processing station includes a processing station conveyor circuit that includes different paths from and to the input conveyor that is in communication with the plurality of processing stations. (See Claim 26)
50. The object processing system of claim 48, wherein each processing station includes a diverter that selectively diverts bins including objects toward the input area. (See Claim 30)
51. The object processing system of claim 48, wherein the actuation mechanism of each carrier of each processing station causes the carriage to tip toward the selected destination container. (See Claim 33)
52. The object processing system of claim 48, wherein each processing station further includes a removal system for removing the selected destination container from the plurality of destination containers. (See Claim 27)
53. The object processing system of claim 48, wherein the destination conveyor is biased urging the destination containers to an end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 34)
54. The object processing system of claim 53, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is biased by gravity to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 34)
55. The object processing system of claim 53, wherein the destination conveyor of each processing station is actively biased to urge the destination containers to the end of the destination conveyor. (See Claim 34)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights