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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doke et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,720,567).
Regarding claim 1: Doke discloses a system for opening a container, the system comprising:
a mathematical model (via robot 80; “the programmable robot 80 mathematically creates a motion path for the cutting head 100”) stored in a memory and specifying cutting patterns, each cutting pattern comprising one or more of: a cutting tool to be used, a location of where cuts are to be made, a depth of the cuts into the container, and a speed of the cutting tool (via “Based on the IDs, the controller 40 determines from its memory the dimensions and the cut patterns associated with IDs” and claim 1; “a memory for storing a plurality of cut definitions…cut definitions in memory”; claim 37; “a memory for storing a preset definition defining one or more spatial movements” and/or Fig. 6; via 210; “controller calculates motion vectors to position the cutting head to cut box”);
a container opening machine including at least one cutting tool (Fig. 1; via cutting head 100) and;
a control circuit configured to:
receive sensed information from one or more sensing devices (via controller 40 and detection system 41);
analyze the sensed information wherein features of contents of the container are obtained (via “the automated box opening apparatus 300 can be coupled to an imaging system 370, such as an X-ray scanner or other device known in the art, to image the contents of the boxes…can provide information about the contents of the boxes and the location of the contents in the boxes…the image information from the system 370 and can derive a cutting pattern or profile for the cutting head 344”);
subsequently apply the features to the mathematical model wherein resulting in a cutting pattern being produced by the mathematical model (via “the image information from the system 370 and can derive a cutting pattern or profile for the cutting head 344” and/or “the imaging system 370 can provide information about the contents of the boxes and the location of the contents in the boxes. The controller 340 can then perform image processing of the image information from the system 370 and can derive a cutting pattern or profile for the cutting head 344 that takes the location of the box’s contents into consideration”) and;
send the cutting pattern to the container opening machine (Fig. 6; via 210 & 212);
wherein the container opening machine is operated and the container cut and opened by the container opening machine according to the cutting pattern (via 210; “controller calculates motion vectors to position the cutting head to cut box”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein the cutting tool is one or more of a saw blade or a laser (via blade 100).
Regarding claim 4: wherein the features of the contents include one or more of dimensions of the contents, a spacing of the contents, a shape of the contents, a size of the contents, a number of contents in the container, a monetary value of the contents, and an orientation of the contents (via “to image the contents of the boxes…can provide information about the contents of the boxes and the location of the contents in the boxes”).
Regarding claim 5: wherein the container includes a label or tag that is scanned by the one or more sensing devices and sensor data is sensed from the label or tag by the one or more sensing devices; (via “The apparatus 10 can include an ID detection system 41, such as …tag scanner…The detection system 41 reads or detects the ID of the boxes entering the apparatus 10”).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the container includes the same type of items (intended use limitations of the system and actual container not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 7: wherein the cutting pattern specifies that the cutting tool (via cutting head 100) selected is a laser (via “laser sensor”) and that an intensity of the laser is adjusted to a predetermined value (intended use limitations of the claimed cutting tool; not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 8: wherein the mathematical model is a convolutional neural network (inherently the programmable robot 80 and its mathematically creates of a motion path for the cutting head 100 could be a CNN model).
Regarding claim 9: wherein the container arrives on a scanning surface and the scanning surface is a conveyor belt, see for example (Fig. 1; via conveyor means 20 & imaging system such as scanner 370).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises a scanning device and a sensor, the scanning device and sensor being separate from each other (via scanner 370 and sensors 56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Doke ‘567 does not disclose the claimed “mathematical model” stored in memory and stores cutting patterns, as ‘567 motion path is not stored for later use, but calculated and used immediately to control a robot. Applicant further agues that ‘567 does not teach obtaining a cutting pattern from features of contents of a container by applying the features to the stored model. Applicant mentions that selecting a cutting pattern by applying container content features to a stored model (as is being claimed) is different than modifying an already selected cutting pattern based upon box dimensions.
The Office as set forth above believes that the applied art ‘567 indeed suggesting the argued upon mathematical model stored in memory for a cutting pattern, see for example claim 1; “a memory for storing a plurality of cut definitions…cut definitions in memory”. Further, ‘567 suggests that obtaining a cutting pattern in light of featuring the contents of a container, see for example “the imaging system 370 can provide information about the contents of the boxes and the location of the contents in the boxes. The controller 340 can then perform image processing of the image information from the system 370 and can derive a cutting pattern or profile for the cutting head 344 that takes the location of the box’s contents into consideration”, inherently the controller 340 runs calculations and/or mathematical model (a program) to come up with the desired “cutting pattern” in respect to the box’s contents.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights