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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 22nd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2 and 4-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims overcome the objections and some of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 23rd, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, “in form of” should read “in the form of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-10 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.
Claims 9-10 recite the limitation "the scanned shape of the packages and/or the scanned surface". There is potentially insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, since claim 7 recited “in which the shape of the packages is scanned and/or the surface is scanned”. If only the shape is scanned, “the scanned surface” as recited in claims 9-10 lacks antecedent basis. If only the surface is scanned, “the scanned shape of the packages” as recited in claims 9-10 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 is rejected as it is dependent upon claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahbel (DE 4338801) in view of Handy et al. (US 4832204). English translations of the specification and claims of Ahbel (DE 4338801) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-7),
- in which the packages are delivered to the sorting station (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-8), unloaded in the sorting station (Paragraph 0020 lines 4-6) and transported successively to a scanning device (Fig. 1 #16) in at least one transport sequence (Fig. 1 sequence of ‘P’ through #16),
- in which the packages of the at least one transport sequence are scanned successively in accordance with the at least one transport sequence in order to detect respectively at least one size measurement (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5) and respectively at least one sorting parameter (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-10, Paragraph 0023 lines 1-9),
- in which the scanned packages are sorted in the at least one transport sequence in a sorting device on the basis of the at least one sorting parameter (Paragraph 0023 lines 1-9) and divided into at least two parallel sorting sequences of packages (Fig. 1 ‘P’ divided into parallel sequences along #20),
- in which the packages of the parallel sorting sequences are successively loaded into different transport units (Fig. 1 #30) by at least one robot (Fig. 1 #14) in accordance with the sorting sequences (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-4) and are transported away from the sorting station by the transport units (Paragraph 0030 lines 7-8),
- in which a control device (Paragraph 0021 lines 4-5) determines at least two parallel, theoretical sorting sequences based on the at least one transport sequence and the at least one sorting parameter of the packages of the at least one transport sequence (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-8),
- in which the control device (Paragraph 0021 lines 4-5) determines optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units in a space-saving manner based on the theoretical sorting sequences, based on the at least one size measurement of the packages of the theoretical sorting sequences and based on a loading algorithm (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-8),
- in which only individual packages are removed from the transport sequence and/or from the sorting sequences (Fig. 1 sequence of ‘P’ along #20) and are reintroduced into the transport sequence and/or sorting sequences at another position in order to form the optimized sorting sequences determined by the control device (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-9), and
- in which the packages are loaded into the transport units (Fig. 1 #30) by the at least one robot (Fig. 1 #14) in accordance with the optimized sorting sequences (Paragraph 0014 lines 5-6).
Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching a method in which the packages are delivered in a bundled manner in separate transport units to the sorting station.
Handy et al. (US 4832204) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Col. 1 lines 4-34), in which the packages are delivered in a bundled manner in separate transport units (Col. 5 lines 42-49) to the sorting station (Fig. 5 #24).
Handy et al. (US 4832204) explains that in the induction process, the packages are transferred from a truck in which they are received at the sorting station (Col. 5 lines 42-45). Handy et al. (US 4832204) explains that packages are collected at an origin terminal, where label information and other information regarding the package is determined, and the packages are then forwarded by truck to the sorting station where the information collected at the origin terminal along with further information collected at the sorting station is used to direct the packages in the sorting station (Col. 4 lines 19-39).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include wherein the packages are delivered in a bundled manner in separate transport units to the sorting station as taught by Handy et al. (US 4832204) in order to provide information regarding the incoming packages collected from an origin.
Regarding claim 2, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the packages are scanned in at least one preliminary transport sequence (Fig. 1 preliminary sequence of ‘P’ through #16, Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5),
- in which only individual packages are removed from the transport sequence and reintroduced to form the optimized transport sequence determined by the control device (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-18), and
- in which the packages of the optimized transport sequence are sorted in a sorting device into at least two optimized sorting sequences based on the at least one sorting parameter (Fig. 1 ‘P’ divided into parallel optimized sequences along #20, Paragraph 0024 lines 7-18).
Regarding claim 3, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the packages of the transport sequence in at least one preliminary transport sequence (Fig. 1 preliminary sequence of ‘P’ through #16, Paragraph 0021 lines 1-5) are sorted in a sorting device into at least two preliminary sorting sequences based on the at least one sorting parameter (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-9, “pre-sorted to the various buffers”), and
- in which only individual packages are removed from the preliminary sorting sequences and reintroduced into the sorting sequences at a different position to form the optimized sorting sequences determined by the control device (Paragraph 0024 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 5, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the at least one size parameter of the packages is scanned by means of a six-sided scanner, a line scanner, and/or a volume scanner (Paragraph 0012 lines 4-5, Paragraph 0013 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which at least two size parameters of each package are scanned (Paragraph 0012 lines 4-5), and/or
- in which the height, the length and the width of each package are scanned (Paragraph 0012 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to any claim 1,
- in which the shape of the packages is scanned (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-4) and/or the surface of the packages is scanned (Paragraph 0013 lines 4-8), preferably by means of a six-sided scanner, a line scanner, and/or a volume scanner, and
- in which the control device determines, based on the scanned shape of the packages (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-4) and/or the scanned surface of the packages (Paragraph 0013 lines 4-8), whether the shape is at least one predetermined special shape of the packages (Paragraph 0023 lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 10, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 7,
- in which article classes of the packages are inferred by the control device (Paragraph 0024 lines 11-18) based on the scanned shape of the packages (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-4) and/or the scanned surface of the packages (Paragraph 0013 lines 4-8, Paragraph 0012 lines 4-8), and
- in which the control device also determines space-saving, optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units based on the article classes of the packages (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0014 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 11, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the weight of each package is determined (Paragraph 0012 lines 5-8), and
- in which the control device also determines space-saving, optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units based on the weight of the packages (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0014 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 14, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the packages are unloaded from transport units in the form of utility vehicle structures in form of a truck, a trailer or a semi-trailer, and/or from transport units in form of non-self-propelled low-floor vehicles and/or
- in which the packages are loaded into non-self-propelled low-floor vehicles (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which packaged piece goods are used as packages (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-8), and
- where the piece goods are parcels (Paragraph 0020 lines 1-2).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahbel (DE 4338801) in view of Handy et al. (US 4832204) and further in view of Eger (US 2018/0029082).
Regarding claim 4, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 1,
- in which the loading state of the at least one transport unit for loading the packages is monitored during the loading of the packages (Paragraph 0014 lines 4-8), and
- in which the control device determines the optimized sorting sequence on the basis of the loading state of at least one transport unit (Paragraph 0014 lines 4-8, “current state of the stack”).
Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching a method in which the loading state of the at least one transport unit for loading the packages is monitored during the loading of the packages by means of at least one sensor, and in which the control device determines the optimized sorting sequence on the basis of the loading state of at least one transport unit detected by the at least one sensor.
Eger (US 2018/0029082) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5),
- in which the loading state of the at least one transport unit for loading the packages is monitored during the loading of the packages by means of at least one sensor (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-9), and
- in which the control device (Fig. 1 #100) determines the optimized sorting sequence on the basis of the loading state of at least one transport unit (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-17) detected by the at least one sensor (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-9).
Eger (US 2018/0029082) explains that a sensor determines when the fill level of the bin has reached a first threshold, indicating that the bin is nearing capacity, and when the fill level has reached a second threshold, indicating that the bin is at capacity (Paragraph 0038 lines 1-9), such that packages are not rejected and bins are not inadequately filled (Paragraph 0043 lines 2-17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include wherein the loading state of the at least one transport unit for loading the packages is monitored during the loading of the packages by means of at least one sensor, and wherein the control device determines the optimized sorting sequence on the basis of the loading state of at least one transport unit detected by the at least one sensor as taught by Eger (US 2018/0029082) in order to adequately fill the transport unit without rejecting packages.
Regarding claim 9, Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching the method according to claim 7,
- in which electronic 3D models of the packages are generated by the control device from the scanned shape of the packages and/or the scanned surface of the packages, and
- in which the control device also determines, based on the electronic 3D models of the packages, space-saving, optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units.
Eger (US 2018/0029082) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5),
- in which electronic 3D models of the packages are generated by the control device from the scanned shape of the packages and/or the scanned surface of the packages (Paragraph 0043 lines 1-12, Paragraph 0050 lines 1-5), and
- in which the control device also determines, based on the electronic 3D models of the packages, space-saving, optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-15).
Eger (US 2018/0029082) explains that when the control system determines that the accumulated volume of all items in transport to a given bin will reach the capacity of the bin, the control system can dynamically reassign the sort criterion for that bin to a new bin (Paragraph 0046 lines 1-6), and explains that the system can measure and store some or all of the dimensions of items or create a shape profile, and can compute a cubic volume of each of the items (Paragraph 0050 lines 1-5). Eger (US 2018/0029082) states that this system maximizes the product content of each output container and minimizes the total number of finalized containers (Paragraph 0059 lines 5-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include wherein electronic 3D models of the packages are generated by the control device from the scanned shape of the packages and/or the scanned surface of the packages, and wherein the control device also determines, based on the electronic 3D models of the packages, space-saving, optimized sorting sequences to be loaded successively into the transport units as taught by Eger (US 2018/0029082) in order to maximize the number of packages loaded in each transport unit based on the shape profile and cubic volume of each package, and minimize the total number of transport units used for sorting.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahbel (DE 4338801) in view of Handy et al. (US 4832204) and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 2011/0046775).
Regarding claim 8, Ahbel (DE 4338801) teaches the method according to claim 7,
- in which the packages with predetermined special shapes are removed from the transport sequence (Paragraph 0023 lines 9-12) and/or from the sorting sequence.
Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching the method in which the removed packages with special shapes are loaded into at least one transport unit.
Bailey et al. (US 2011/0046775) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-6), in which the packages with predetermined special shapes are removed from the transport sequence (Fig. 35A #3535, 3540, Paragraph 1243 lines 8-17, Paragraph 1539 lines 1-10) and/or from the sorting sequence, and in which the removed packages with special shapes are loaded into at least one transport unit (Paragraph 1243 lines 8-17, Paragraph 1539 lines 6-12).
Bailey et al. (US 2011/0046775) explains that a determination is made as to whether the dimensions of a mail piece are larger than the maximum dimensions, and if so, the mail piece is routed to a hold bin or reject bin until the mail piece may be manually sorted or re-inserted into the sequencing/sortation system (Paragraph 1539 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include in which the removed packages with special shapes are loaded into at least one transport unit as taught by Bailey et al. (US 2011/0046775) in order to hold the packages with special shapes until the packages may be manually sorted or re-inserted into the sorting station.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahbel (DE 4338801) in view of Handy et al. (US 4832204) and further in view of Pachon et al. (US 11093891).
Regarding claim 12, Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching the method according to claim 1,
- in which size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages are communicated to the control device before the transport unit is unloaded, and
- in which the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of the at least individual packages are compared with the scanned size dimensions and/or sorting parameters with at least individual packages.
Pachon et al. (US 11093891) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Col. 1 lines 58-64),
- in which size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages (Col. 3 lines 45-58) are communicated to the control device before the transport unit is unloaded (Col. 3 lines 27-32), and
- in which the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of the at least individual packages are compared with the scanned size dimensions and/or sorting parameters with at least individual packages (Col. 13 lines 44-65).
Pachon et al. (US 11093891) explains that the ability to predict packages that may arrive at the facility can add value since the sortation process can being prior to completion of accepting orders for delivery during a period of time (Col. 3 lines 40-44), and the sort zone assignment engine can apply optimization algorithms to determine optical sort zone assignments for the expected packages based on the data corresponding to the expected packages or the facility (Col. 5 lines 39-44). Pachon et al. (US 11093891) additionally explains that the sort zone assignment engine can update the assignments in real time as needed to account for unexpected packages, sort zone utilization limitations, overflow requirements, unexpected transportation delays, and other factors (Col. 5 line 65-Col. 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include wherein size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages are communicated to the control device before the transport unit is unloaded, and in which the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of the at least individual packages are compared with the scanned size dimensions and/or sorting parameters with at least individual packages as taught by Pachon et al. (US 11093891) in order to begin the sortation process prior to unloading of the packages and to update the assignments in real time as needed based on the scanned sorting parameters.
Regarding claim 13, Ahbel (DE 4338801) lacks teaching the method according to claim 12,
- in which the control device determines an optimized sorting sequence of at least individual packages based on the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages before the at least individual packages are unloaded, and
- in which the optimized sorting sequence of the packages is determined by the control device after the scanning of the packages, taking into account the optimized sorting sequence theoretically determined before the scanning of the packages on the basis of the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters.
Pachon et al. (US 11093891) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station (Col. 1 lines 58-64),
- in which the control device (Col. 5 lines 3-16) determines an optimized sorting sequence of at least individual packages based on the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages before the at least individual packages are unloaded (Col. 5 lines 39-44), and
- in which the optimized sorting sequence of the packages is determined by the control device (Col. 5 lines 3-16, 39-44) after the scanning of the packages (Col. 5 lines 65-67), taking into account the optimized sorting sequence theoretically determined before the scanning of the packages on the basis of the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters (Col. 5 line 65-Col. 6 line 3).
Pachon et al. (US 11093891) explains that the ability to predict packages that may arrive at the facility can add value since the sortation process can being prior to completion of accepting orders for delivery during a period of time (Col. 3 lines 40-44), and the sort zone assignment engine can apply optimization algorithms to determine optical sort zone assignments for the expected packages based on the data corresponding to the expected packages or the facility (Col. 5 lines 39-44). Pachon et al. (US 11093891) additionally explains that the sort zone assignment engine can update the assignments in real time as needed to account for unexpected packages, sort zone utilization limitations, overflow requirements, unexpected transportation delays, and other factors (Col. 5 line 65-Col. 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ahbel (DE 4338801) to include wherein the control device determines an optimized sorting sequence of at least individual packages based on the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters of at least individual packages before the at least individual packages are unloaded, and wherein the optimized sorting sequence of the packages is determined by the control device after the scanning of the packages, taking into account the optimized sorting sequence theoretically determined before the scanning of the packages on the basis of the communicated size dimensions and/or sorting parameters as taught by Pachon et al. (US 11093891) in order to begin the sortation process prior to unloading of the packages, and update the assignments in real time as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Ahbel (DE 4338801) does not disclose reintroducing packages into a transport sequence and/or sorting sequence, since Ahbel discloses moving requested packages from a buffer (20) to a separate transfer carriage (28), followed by transporting the packages to a separate access area. The Examiner would like to clarify that Ahbel teaches removing each requested package from a buffer, and transferring the requested package from the buffer to the transfer carriage, such that the requested package(s) may be transported to the access area of the robot system so that they are already there at the moment of need (Paragraph 0028). Claim 1 recites “in which only individual packages are removed from the transport sequence and/or from the sorting sequences and are reintroduced into the transport sequence and/or sorting sequences at another position in order to form the optimized sorting sequences determined by the control device, and in which the packages are loaded into the transport units by the at least one robot in accordance with the optimized sorting sequences”, wherein Ahbel “reintroduces” packages into the sorting sequence at another position by transporting the packages from the point which they were removed from the buffer to the access area of the robot system, such that the robot system may load the transport units (30) according to the optimized sorting sequence by selecting the package which is located on the buffer (20) or selecting the package on the separate transport carriage (28). The selection of packages is performed according to the optimized sorting sequence, as explained by Ahbel stating “the handling mechanism can, depending on the current state of the stack, select one of the several packages located at the exit of a particular buffer in the access area which, in terms of a particular dimension or because of its weight, fits better into a particular position in the stack” (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-8). The “sorting sequence” as claimed is the sequence (order) in which the packages are loaded into different transport units by at lest one robot.
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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653