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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (“Wagner”)(US 2018/0282065 A1) in view of Dholakia et al (“Dholakia”)(US 2021/0090005) and Davolio et al. (“Davolio”)(US 2024/0124236).
Wagner (fig. 2-13) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station,
(re: certain elements of claim 1) in which the packages are scanned successively in at least one transport sequence in order to respectively detect at least one sorting parameter in accordance with the at least one transport sequence (fig. 2, 3, 13 showing perception unit 66; para. 34, 37 teaching that system directs packages into specific parallel sorting sequences/lanes based on the information captured by unit 66 related to package contents),
- 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 and are divided into at least two parallel sorting sequences of packages (Id. wherein parameter can be regarded as package contents and fig. 2, 3 showing parallel lanes near 46, 48),
- in which the packages of the parallel sorting sequences are loaded one after the other into at least one transport unit with at least one common robot in accordance with the sorting parameters (fig. 2, 3, 13 showing that package contents are loaded into transport units 54, 56 with common robot; para. 35-37),
- in which a control device (70) determines an optimized loading sequence for the at least one common robot based on the at least one sorting parameter of the packages of the at least two parallel sorting sequences (para. 37-65 teaching that central controller 70 controls loading of packages via robots and further information from perception units, wherein loading sequence is optimized based on contents and further information, such as grasp location, known gripper and package characteristics, and robot trajectory/risk data);
- in which the packages are loaded into the at least one transport unit by the at least one common robot in accordance with the optimized loading sequence (Id.);
in which the loading state of the at least one transport unit during the loading of the packages is determined and is passed to the control device for optimization of the loading sequence (para. 35 teaching determining loading state of transport unit-- “box complete”, i.e., fully-loaded);
(re: claim 2) in which the packages of separate parallel sorting sequences are successively loaded respectively into at least one different transport unit by at least one common robot in accordance with the sorting parameters of the packages of the separate parallel sorting sequences respectively (Id.);
(re: claim 4) in which the at least one sorting parameter of the packages is scanned by means of a scanning device (fig. 4 and para. 34, 39-52, 62, 64 teaching initial scanning of package contents via unit 66 and further scanning via units 50, 52, wherein units 50, 52 provide information that optimizes loading by identifying package information, such as 3D depth, material type, shape, weight and size, to improve grasp locations/sequence);
(re: claim 5) in which the at least one sorting parameter of the packages is at least one size parameter of the packages (Id.), and
(re: claim 6) in which the control device determines, based on the at least one size parameter, the shape and/or the surface of the packages (Id.);
(re: claim 7) in which electronic 3D models of the packages are generated by the control device based on the at least one size parameter, the shape and/or the surface of the packages, and
- in which the control device assigns the packages to different sorting sequences at least also based on the electronic 3D models of the packages (Id.);
(re: claim 8) in which the at least one sorting parameter of the packages is at least one weight of the packages (Id.);
(re: claim 9) in which the control device infers, based on the at least one size parameter, the shape, the surface and/or the weight of the packages, article classes of the packages, and
- in which the control device assigns the packages to different sorting sequences at least also on the basis of the article classes of the packages (Id. with para. 40 teaching classing of object based on 3D model that object may be unhandleable because object is underneath another package and limited availability of grasp locations and para. 64 teaching classing of packages based on light and heavy and optimizing loading sequence accordingly);
(re: claim 10) in which at least one article class of the packages comprises packages unhandleable by the at least one common robot (Id.);
(re: claim 11) in which the common robot removes successively, in particular respectively the foremost packages from different sorting sequences of the at least two parallel sorting sequences for loading into the at least one transport unit (Id. wherein logic dictates that foremost packages are unloaded thus providing better grasp locations for packages located underneath);
(re: claim 14) in which the packages are unloaded to form the at least one transport sequence from transport units in the form of commercial vehicle bodies (para. 32); and
(re: claim 15) in which packages are packaged piece goods (fig. 5).
Wagner as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) wherein the loading state of the at least one transport unit is determined by means of at least one optical sensor;
(re: claim 12) in which the control device specifies the loading sequence of the packages at least partially with regard to a space-saving loading of the packages into the at least one transport unit;
(re: claim 13) in which the control device specifies the loading sequence of the packages at least partially with regard to the stackability of the packages in the at least one transport unit.
Dholakia, however, teaches that it is well-known in the package loading arts
(re: certain elements of claim 1 and claim 12)
- to use optical sensors, such as 3D sensors, to gather information related to a loading space to optimize loading of said loading space (Abstract teaching that optical sensor data can be used to determine item sequencing and that “cubic efficiency of the loading space is maximized and amount of air gaps between items is minimized”; Cf. 1, 4, 6a, 6b, 7 showing control elements and package configuration; para. 18, 19, 30, 35, 36, 39-75 with para. 30 teaching that 3D sensor can be configured as an imaging device with depth perception and loading space data can include dimensions such as height, length and width).
Davolio further teaches that it is well-known in the order fulfillment and package handling arts
(re: claims 12, 13)
- to optimize the loading sequence of articles based on variables, such as stackability, size and weight of said articles (para. 52, 54, 55, 60, 62-63, 79 teaching loading optimization via artificial intelligence, wherein manual loading can be implemented without reducing system efficiency).
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. 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 Wagner for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, Dholakia and Davolio (“Wagner et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of legal precedent.
Wagner et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 16) wherein each transport unit in the sorting station is assigned an optical sensor.
Here, the claimed features relating to number of sensors per transport unit in a sorting system can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the sorting arts as the type of material to be sorted controls variations in the specific device dimensions, features and/or sorting steps. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
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 legal precedent as described above. 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 Wagner 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 feature of determining a loading state of at least one transport unit by means of at least one optical sensor is not taught. Dholakia, however, as cited above teaches the use of an optical sensor to optimize loading of a specific space is well-known in the package handling arts and an unlikely basis for patentability. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
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. The Official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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
---
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights