OMNIDIRECTIONAL ACTUATED SURFACES TO DELIVER OBJECTS

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 . Final Rejection Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below. The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 1-10, 13-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney (“Fourney ‘306”)(US 2022/0017306) in view of Lundahl et al. (“Lundahl”)(US 10,766,711) and Dugat (US 2015/0144536) Fourney ‘306 teaches a system comprising: (re: certain elements of claims 1 and 9) an assembly comprising at least one modular tile forming at least a portion of walking surface, wherein each modular tile comprises rotating segments to wherein each modular tile comprises rotating segments configured to move independently to induce a motion for an object placed anywhere on the walking surface, the assembly comprising multiple destinations defining areas for delivery (fig. 9 showing assembly comprising modular tiles and multiple destinations near 92 for delivery; para. 16, 23, 25-26 teaching that omnidirectional-roller sorter includes roller sets that are “independently controlled” and “selectively rotatable” by an associated motor and actuated by a controller to convey/sort an item to a specific destination along multiple directions, wherein any flat continuous surface, i.e., flat grid of modular tiles as shown in fig. 9, can be regarded as a walking surface and the omnidirectional rollers induce motion an object placed anywhere on the walking surface); and a processor/controller (fig. 2 showing controller 29) configured to: identify a destination of the multiple destinations to deliver the object (para. 2, 16-19, 25-26 teaching that controller 29 directs each omnidirectional-roller sorter with specific instructions to direct an object, i.e., parcel or package, to a specific destination, wherein it is inherent that the controller identifies a destination of said object in order to properly direct/sort said object to the destination); and modify a configuration of the rotating segments to direct the object to the destination (Id. teaching that controller adjusts and changes directions of said roller sorters and selects a different route/pathway for an object to avoid collisions); (re: claim 2) wherein the assembly comprises a starting location and a bi-directional path between the starting location and the destination, and wherein the processor is configured to direct the object along the bi-directional path via the assembly (fig. 9 showing inputs and bi-directional pathways for objects that provide multiple paths to a destination 92; para. 25-26); (re: certain elements of claim 5) wherein the assembly defines multiple paths to the destination (Id.); (re: claim 6) wherein the multiple paths are parallel paths (Id.); (re: claim 8) wherein the object is a package (para. 2 teaching application of sorter system to delivery of articles such as parcels and packages); (re: certain elements of claim 10) wherein: the delivery assembly defines a receiving area configured to receive multiple objects including the object (fig. 9 showing multiple input areas for multiple objects near 98; para. 2, 25, 26); and the controller is configured to identify respective destinations of the multiple objects, with the delivery assembly routing the multiple objects to the respective destinations (fig. 2 and para. 16-19 teaching sorting of multiple objects to respective destinations); (re: claim 14) wherein the support surface defines a floor for a warehouse or factory (para. 2 teaching application of sorter system to delivery of articles such as parcels and packages, thus system can be regarded as a parcel/package processing warehouse); (re: claim 21) wherein the processor is configured to selectively actuate the rotating segments to move independently to direct the object to the destination (para. 15-19, 25-26 teaching that omnidirectional-roller sorter modules include “rollers that are selectively rotatable” and that controller selectively adjusts specific rollers to divert an article to a specific destination); (re: claim 22) wherein the at least one modular tile comprises a plurality of modular tiles connected to form the walking surface (fig. 9); (re: claim 24) wherein: the walking surface defines a flooring surface, such that the at least one modular tile forms at least a portion of the flooring surface; and the rotating segments are configured to move independently to induce the object to move along the flooring surface (fig. 9). (re: claims 16, 17, 19, 20) The method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below. Fourney ‘306 as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching (re: certain elements of claims 1 and 9) said processor configured to detect a characteristic of the object and identify a destination based on said characteristic; (re: claim 3) wherein the characteristic comprises a size of the object, a weight of the object, or an identifier affixed to the object; (re: claim 4 and certain elements of claim 9) an image system configured to capture an image of the object; (re: certain elements of claim 5) and wherein the processor is configured to select a path of the multiple paths based on the characteristic; (re: claim 7) wherein the support surface defines a floor for multiple destinations are separate work stations along an assembly line of a warehouse or a factory; (re: certain elements of claim 10) the image system is configured to capture a respective image of the multiple objects; and (re: claim 13) wherein the controller is configured to modify the delivery assembly to direct the object to a different destination based on a user input at the destination (re: certain elements of claim 20) wherein modifying the configuration of the rotating segments comprises adapting the delivery assembly based on a detected anomaly of the delivery assembly or an anomaly along the first path. (re: claim 15) an assembly line comprising the delivery system of claim 9; (re: claim 23) wherein the object comprises a part assembly, and wherein the processor is configured to modify the configuration of the rotating segments to direct the part assembly down the assembly line while simultaneously delivering parts or tooling to the work stations. Further, under an alternate interpretation, the sorting level taught by Fourney ‘306 may not be interpreted as a walking surface or floor portion (re: claims 1, 9, 24). Here, it is noted that Fourney ‘306 is titled “Grid Sorter” and that the modular tiles are expressly configured for sorting articles, such as parcels, package and letters (para. 2-3) and is merely silent on how the processor is configured to detect a characteristic and identify a destination of an item based on said characteristic. Dugat teaches that it is well-known in the sorting and conveying arts (re: claims 1, 3-5, 9) -to configure the processor to identify an item destination based on scanner/camera generated data to properly sort an item (fig. 8A, 8B and para. 97-88, 106, 111-115 teaching that sorting system includes processor connected to a scanner, such as a photo-optic sensor or camera, that generates data, e.g., identifier code, to identify an item, wherein the processor selects a destination and routing based on the item identity); (re: claims 7, 15 and 23) - to integrate these types of modular delivery and transport elements into a variety of environments to add flexibility in use to fixed structures—including the walking surface or a warehouse or manufacturing facility comprising work stations (fig. 1b showing modular components forming walking surface of warehouse or manufacturing facility, fig. 6, 8, 9 and 10 showing bi-directional conveying elements; para. 3-4, 33-35, 38-51, 95, 104, 105, 128-134 teaching use of modular conveyor elements to transport packages/materials in environments that require flexibility and mobility, wherein said system can be adapted to a variety of facilities—such as manufacturing facilities or warehouse distribution centers that require efficient product/inventory flow between dynamic inputs, outputs and workstations with para. 3, 40-41, 44 teaching that modular sorting system is applicable to manufacturing environments requiring product components to be transported to various work stations in manufacturing facility and that modular components can be mated/adapted to existing fixed structures); and (re: claims 1, 9 and 24) -to configure the modular tile as a floor portion or walking surface (fig. 1b showing 1b as part of floor portion wherein any flat surface can be regarded as a walking surface). Lundahl further teaches that it is well-known in the sorting arts- (re: certain elements of claim 1, 3-5 and 9-10) -to integrate imaging, dimension and weight sensors to gather package characteristic data that allows optimization of package handling (fig. 2 showing sensors 14, 15, 16 and computer 3 for controlling sort modules 22; col. 11, ln. 20-col. 13 teaching computer 3 that collects data about a package and identifies/determines a sort point destination based on said data, wherein control computer interfaces with induction sub-system to gather data from camera 14, dimensioner 15 and weigher 16 to optimize package handling); (re: certain elements of claim 1, 4, 9, 10 and 13) - to add flexibility by allowing the sort point destination to be determined remotely or via manual input (col. 3, ln. 18-52 and col. 11, ln. 20-col 13 teaching that sort point destination can be determined locally with control computer via image data, remote server or manual input, wherein computer can update sort destination via human interface); and (re: certain elements of claim 20) -to adapt to a detected anomaly to avoid errors in package handling (col. 2, ln. 45-52; col. 7-9 and col. 12, ln. 50-col. 13 teaching that control system adapts to jams and irregular package dimensions and can dynamically adjust speeds to allow sorting of packages). It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., processor configurations related to detecting and identifying a destination) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Fourney ‘306 for the reasons set forth above. Claims 11, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney ‘306, Lundahl and Dugat (“Fourney ‘306 et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Fourney (“Fourney ‘221”)(US 2011/0022221) and Daboub (US 2018/0362263). Fourney ‘306 et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching (re: claim 11) wherein the controller is configured to modify the delivery assembly at the receiving area to separate the multiple objects for detection; (re: claim 12) wherein the controller is configured to modify the delivery assembly at the receiving area to orient the multiple objects for image capture; (re: claim 18) separating, via the delivery assembly, multiple objects including the object at a receiving area of the delivery assembly; Fourney ‘221, however, teaches that it is well-known in package sorting arts that the receiving area can be configured to receive multiple objects and image said objects side-by-side (fig. 1, 2 showing random mass flow of packages arrive near 24 and separating said objects via a roller conveyor; para. 2-3 teaching that unscrambling is effective; para. 20-21, 31-36 teaching that mass flow of packages can be properly singulated and transported for further processing using camera data and roller conveyors to eliminate package conflicts). Daboub further teaches that it is also known to singulate multiple objects, prior to infeed, to allow proper sensing of the package data (para. 2 teaching that it is well-known to integrate a “singulation” system prior to an infeed system of an automated sorting machine to allow the sensors of infeed system to automatically and properly sense and procure data from the individual articles, such as dimensions, weight and delivery information). It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the separating arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Fourney ‘306 et al. for the reasons set forth above. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections set forth above. In particular, Applicant argues that the prior art fails “to induce a motion for an object placed anywhere on a walking surface” as the prior art contains fixed input points. Examiner disagrees and notes that the configuration of omnidirectional modular tiles is capable of inducing motion to an “object placed anywhere” on the modular sorting grid. PNG media_image1.png 646 731 media_image1.png Greyscale The claim limitations thus do not appear commensurate to Applicant’s argued for limitation, i.e., that an object can be inputted anywhere on the modular sorting grid. Applicant’s further argument that the prior art does not teach a “walking surface” is also undermined by a reasonable interpretation of the prior art. Here, Examiner notes that “walking surface” has not been defined in the specification and it is reasonable to interpret walking surface as any surface which allows walking, i.e., any continuous surface such as the sorting surface formed from the modular tiles as sorting shown in figure 9 above. Further, it is reasonable to regard this surface as a floor element as it is a continuous flat surface on which objects can be placed. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected. Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Conclusion Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805. Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”. Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ /JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 Jcr ------ August 28, 2026