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 Claim Priority
Claims 35-67 are currently being examined. Claims 1-34 were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
This Application makes a claim of priority to a Provisional Application and the chain of Continuing Applications set forth in the Specification. This claim of Continuation priority based on the Provisional Application and Continuation Applications is being challenged as set forth in Paragraph 5 set forth hereinbelow.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every element and feature of the invention specified in claims set forth hereinbelow. Therefore, the following elements or features must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the element or feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. The elements or features in the claims are as follows:
Circular input conveyor – claims 35, 48, 60
First input area– claims 35,39,47,48,52,59,60,64
First input station – claims 35,45,48,57,60
First programmable motion device – claims 48,54,55,57,58,59,60,66,67
First processing bin – claims 35,48,60
Second processing bin – claims 35,48,60
Processing bins – claims 35,41,44,45,46,48,56,57,58,60
Second input area – claims 35,47,48,59,60
Second programmable motion device – claims 35,41,42,43, 45,46,47,48,54,55, 57,58,59,60,66,67
Second input station – claims 35,45,48,57,60
Container(s) – claims 35,37,40,48,50,53,60,62,65
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 not one of the elements or features set forth in Paragraph 3 above are disclosed or otherwise described in any detail in the Specification. In fact, the Claims that are set forth hereinabove are the first instance in which these elements or features are first introduced. Appropriate correction is required without adding any new matter. Please be advised that the elements or features set forth hereinabove are neither disclosed nor recited in any of the Provisional Application and Continuing Applications to which this Application makes a claim of priority.
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 35-67 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, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 48, 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase “circular input conveyor” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 39, 47, 48, 52, 59, 60, and 64 each contain a limitation with the phrase “first input area” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 45, 48, 57, and 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase “first input station” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, and 67 each contain a limitation with the phrase “first programmable motion device” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 48, and 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase a“first processing bin” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 48, and 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase “second processing bin” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 56, 57, 58, and 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase “processing bins” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 47, 48, 59, and 60, each contain a limitation with the phrase “second input area” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, and 67 each contain a limitation with the phrase “second programmable motion device” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 45, 48, 57, and 60 each contain a limitation with the phrase “second input station” that cannot be found in either the Specification or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 37, 40, 48, 50, 53, 60, 62, and 65 each contain a limitation with the word “container” or “containers” that cannot be found in either the Specification with any detailed definition or the Drawings. As a result, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 35, 38, 48, 51, 60, and 63 each contain limitations with the phrase “the circular conveyor” that lack a proper antecedent basis that renders each respective claim indefinite.
Claims 36, 49, and 61 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights