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 § 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the perception area" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 31-38, 40-48, and 51-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner U.S. Patent No. 10,596,696.
Claim 31, Wagner teaches an object processing system 10 including a container jostling station 12 in advance of an object processing station 18 that includes a programmable motion device 20 for grasping and lifting objects 90,92 from a plurality of containers 14, said container jostling station 12 comprising: an input conveyance system 30 that moves in a first direction to provide that the container 14 moves along the first direction Fig. 1; a perception system 36 for providing perception data regarding at least one object 90,92 within the container 14 on the input conveyance system 30 at the perception area that moves in the first direction C6 L4-15; two hard stops of 30 on either side of the input conveyance system 30 in mutually opposing second and third directions that are generally transverse to the first direction C3 L45-60; a processing system 60 for receiving the perception data 36 and for selecting one of the two hard stops the container 14 is to be driven against in one of the second and third directions responsive to the perception data 36; and a transverse actuation system 26 for moving the container 14 in one of the second and third directions against the selected one of the two hard stops on either side of the container 14 on the conveyance system 30 to cause the at least one object 90,92 in the container 14 to move within the container 14 C3 L64-67; C4 L1-10.
Claims 32,42, and 54, Wagner teaches the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 include two side rails of 30 (frame) C3 L45-60.
Claims 33,43, and 55, Wagner teaches the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 include two brace walls of 30 C3 L45-60.
Claims 34 and 44, Wagner teaches the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 is determined to be furthest from the at least one object 90,92 in the container 14 based on the perception data 36 C3 L45-60; C4 L64-67; C5 L1-15.
Claims 35 and 45, Wagner teaches the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 is determined to be closest to the at least one object 90,92 in the container 14 based on the perception data 36 C3 L45-60; C4 L64-67; C5 L1-15.
Claims 36,46, and 56, Wagner teaches the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 is determined such that moving the container 14 against the selected hard stop of 30 is most likely to move the at least one object 90,92 toward a center of the container 14 C3 L45-60; C4 L64-67; C5 L1-15.
Claims 37,47, and 57, Wagner teaches the selecting one of the two hard stops of 30 the container 14 is be driven via 30 against involves determining a motion of the container 30 that will be effective in moving the at least one object 90,92 toward the center of the container 14 C3 L45-60; C4 L64-67; C5 L1-15.
Claims 38 and 48, Wagner teaches the transverse actuation system 26 includes at least one rotatable paddle 26 C3 L45-60.
Claims 40, Wagner teaches the transverse actuation system 26 includes at least one transverse belt 28 that is movable in each of the second and third directions C3 L45-60.
Claim 41, Wagner teaches an object processing system 10 including a container jostling station 12 in advance of an object processing station 18 that includes a programmable motion device 20 for grasping and lifting objects 90,92 from a plurality of containers 14, said container jostling station 12 comprising: a perception system 36 for providing perception data regarding a plurality of objects 90,92 within a container 14 on a conveyance system 30 that moves in a first direction; two hard stops of 30 on either side of the container 14 in mutually opposing second and third directions that are generally transverse to the first direction; a processing system 60 for receiving the perception data 36 and for determining whether a container 14 between the two hard stops of 30 is to be driven against a selected one of the two hard stops of 30 in one of the second and third directions responsive to the perception data 36; and a transverse actuation system 36 for moving the container 14 in the one of the second and third directions against the selected one of the two hard stops of 30 on either side of the container 14 on the conveyance system 30 to cause the plurality of objects 90,92 in the container 14 to shift within the container 14.
Claim 51, Wagner teaches a method of processing objects 90,92 comprising: receiving a container 14 to a container jostling station 16 in advance of an object processing station 18 that includes a programmable motion device 20 for grasping and lifting objects 90,92, the container 14 being received at the container jostling station 16 on an input conveyor 30 in a first direction of 30; providing perception data 36 regarding at least one object 90,92 within the container 14 on the input conveyance system 30 at a perception area 36; selecting, responsive to the perception data 36, a selected one of two hard stops of 30 on either side of the container jostling station 16 against which the container 14 will be driven against in one of a second or third mutually opposing direction of 26, the second and third mutually opposing directions of 26 being generally orthogonal to the first direction of 30 Fig. 1; and urging the container 14 against the selected one of two hard stops of 30 on either side of the container jostling station 16 to cause the at least one object 90,92 in the container 14 to move within the container 14.
Claim 52, Wagner teaches the urging via 30 the container 14 against the selected one of two hard stops of 30 causes the at least one object 90,92 to bounce off an inner wall of the container 14.
Claim 53, Wagner teaches the urging via 30 the container 14 against the selected one of two hard stops of 30 causes the at least one object 90,92 to move but not contact an inner wall of the container 14.
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) 39 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner U.S. Patent No. 10,596,696 in view of Skarlupka U.S. Patent No. 9,365,361.
Claims 39 and 49, Wagner does not teach as Skarlupka teaches the at least one rotatable paddle 130 is mounted eccentrically on a drive shaft 128 C2 L30-60. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Wagner with the transverse actuation system configuration taught in Skarlupka with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 50, Wagner does not teach as Skarlupka teaches the transverse actuation system 36 includes at least one transverse belt 44 that is movable in each of the second and third directions C3 L55-65. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Wagner with the transverse actuation system configuration taught in Skarlupka with a reasonable expectation of success because
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