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 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al. (“Wagner”)(US 2018/0282065 A1).
Wagner (fig. 2-13) teaches a method for redistributing packages in a sorting station,
(re: 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),
- 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.);
(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 3) in which the loading state of the at least one transport unit during the loading of the packages and is passed to the control device for optimization of the loading sequence (para. 35 teaching box complete indicator);
(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).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (“Wagner”)(US 2018/0282065 A1) in view of Davolio et al. (“Davolio”)(US 2024/0124236) and Dholakia et al (“Dholakia”)(US 2021/0090005).
Wagner as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(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.
Davolio, however, teaches that it is well-known in the order fulfillment and package handling arts 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).
Dholakia further teaches that it is well-known to use 3D sensors to optimize loading of a transport unit and maximize loading space (Abstract; Cf. 1, 4, 6a, 6b, 7; para. 18, 19, 30, 35, 36, 39-75).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that Wagner fails to disclose a system in which “bins are sorted into at least two separate, parallel sorting sequences” (claim 1). Wagner, however, shows that the packages/bins are directed into at least two parallel sorting sequences (fig. 2, 3 and para. 34, 37 teaching that packages are directed to parallel rows/input areas 46, 48 based on data from initial sensor 66). Applicant further argues that Wagner does not disclose that said packages are loaded into a transport unit by a common robot. However, Wagner –as cited above—undermines Applicant’s arguments by teaching a common robot as claimed (para. 35 teaching a robotic articulated arm for placing objects into transport units 54, 56). 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
------
October 8, 2025