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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-21 in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
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.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, “the determined packing order” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, “the determined packing order” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 13-17 and 19-21, claims 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected because they depend from rejected claims 12.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet (US 6,227,377) in view of Curhan et al (US 2020/0346792), hereinafter Curhan.
Regarding claim 12, Bonnet discloses a method (Col. 7, lines 35-65) of predictively modeling, for ordered packing (Col. 7, lines 35-65), a queuing order of a plurality of articles (Fig. 3, item P) disposed on least two vertically stacked platforms (Fig. 3, item 13) (Col. 7, lines 35-65) (Col. 6, line 49-Col. 7, line 24), comprising:
receiving at a controller (Fig. 8, item 113) a signal indicative of at least one of an article size (Col. 7, lines 35-65, sensors determine the dimensions of the article), a folded article area footprint, and an article type for each of the plurality of laundry articles;
determining a packing order of the plurality of articles (Col. 7, lines 35-65, controller determines packing order by determining which is the correct conveyor 13 to receive the article); and
instructing, based on the determined packing order (Col. 7, lines 35-65), a cantilevered conveyor (Fig. 3, item 15) to deposit each article of the plurality of articles (Col. 7, lines 35-65) on one of the at least two vertically stacked platforms (Col. 6, line 49-Col. 7, line 24) (Col. 7, lines 35-65).
Bonnet is silent about the method of predictively modeling the queuing order of a plurality of laundry articles and determining the packing order of the plurality of folded articles based on at least one of folded article area footprints, and predicted folded article area footprints.
However, Curhan teaches a method (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152) of predictively modeling the queuing order of a plurality of laundry articles (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152) and determining the packing order of the plurality of folded articles (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152) based on at least one of folded article area footprints (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152), and predicted folded article area footprints.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Bonnet and Curhan to modify the method of Bonnet to include the laundry articles and sortying robot, as taught by Curhan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to improve productivity of laundry services by reducing direct labor costs and provide a system which can manipulate multiple sizes and types of clothing articles (Curhan, Para. 0003).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the signal is output from one or more sensors (Curhan, Para. 0138) disposed at at least one of a dirty laundry separating and sorting robot (Curhan, Fig. 2F, item 206) (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152) configured to separate individual items from the plurality of laundry articles (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152) and a folding robot preceding the cantilevered conveyor.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 12, wherein determining the packing order comprises predetermining queue locations (Col. 7, lines 35-65, predetermined queue locations are determined by the controller 113 when determining which conveyor 13 will receive the article) for each one of the plurality of laundry articles (Col. 7, lines 35-65) on the at least two vertically stacked platforms (Col. 7, lines 35-65) based on quantities of each article type and size (Col. 7, lines 35-65) and a predicted folded article area footprint (Col. 7, lines 35-65, predicted folded article area footprint is the dimensions of the article sensed by sensor 115) for each one of plurality of household laundry items.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 14, wherein each one of the predetermined queue locations (Col. 7, lines 35-65) comprises at least a horizontal position (Col. 7, lines 35-65) along a length of one of the at least two vertically stacked platforms (Col. 7, lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the predetermined queue locations (Col. 7, lines 35-65) comprise locations designated for receiving one or more laundry sorting categories (Col. 7, lines 35-65) comprising at least one of one or more particularly sized area footprints (Col. 7, lines 35-65) and one or more article types.
Regarding claim 17, Bonnet discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least two vertically stacked platforms comprise at least one of one or more conveyors (Fig. 3, item 13) (Col. 6, line 49-Col. 7, line 24), one or more static holding shelves (Fig. 3, item 13) (Col. 6, line 49-Col. 7, line 24), and a combination of one or more static holding shelves positioned above a packing queue conveyor.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to instruct the cantilevered conveyor (Col. 7, lines 35-65) to redistribute the plurality of laundry articles (Col. 7, lines 35-65) between the at least two vertically stacked platforms for ordered packing (Col. 7, lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Bonnet teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising storing in a database (Col. 7, line 65-Col. 8, line 12) at least one of the article folded area footprint (Col. 7, line 65-Col. 8, line 12), height, and article type of each of the plurality of laundry articles distributed (Col. 7, line 65-Col. 8, line 12) among the at least two vertically stacked platforms (Col. 7, line 65-Col. 8, line 12).
Regarding claim 21, as combined above, Curhan teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the plurality of laundry articles belong to a single household (Curhan, Para. 0113, 0124, 0140, 0152).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights