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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: having introduced “at least a subset” of an array of diverting mechanisms, the claims recite “the selected at least subset”. This phrase is ungrammatical and confusing. Applicant’s meaning would be clearer by reciting “the selected subset”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horowitz, et al., US 2019/0030571 (hereinafter Horowitz). Note that Horowitz, applicant’s own art, was published prior to the grace period established by 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).
Regarding claim 1,
Horowitz discloses:
A sorting system (sorting system 30: fig. 1), comprising:
an object recognition device (imaging sensor 52: fig. 1, [0023]) configured to obtain sensed data associated with a set of items (items 34: fig. 1) on a conveyor device (conveyor 32: fig. 1);
and one or more processors (controller 50, processor 54: fig. 1) configured to:
receive the sensed data from the object recognition device; ([0023])
determine a target item to be targeted by a controllable array sorting device (pushing device array of fig. 2) based at least in part on the sensed data, ([0024])
wherein the controllable array sorting device comprises an array of diverting mechanisms (individual air jets 76: fig. 2);
select at least a subset of the array of diverting mechanisms based at least in part on an attribute associated with the target item; ([0024], [0044])Horowitz discloses the array subset in [0024] and mechanical sorting considerations based on target item weight in [0044].
and send an instruction to the controllable array sorting device to cause the controllable array sorting device to use the selected at least subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to perform a sorting action on the target item. ([0024])Horowitz discloses a controller directing the action of its pusher devices (diverting devices); a controller, i.e. a general purpose computer, can only control mechanical devices by sending instructions to the devices.
Regarding claim 2,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the array of diverting mechanisms comprises a first array of diverting mechanisms, and wherein the controllable array sorting device comprises a plurality of arrays of diverting mechanisms including the first array of diverting mechanisms, wherein each array of diverting mechanisms is configured to deflect items into a different direction. Horowitz discloses in [0024] that each of its plurality of pusher devices may comprise an array of pushing mechanisms and also the claimed different directions of diversion for the pusher devices.
Regarding claim 3,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the instruction further specifies to use the first array of diverting mechanisms to perform the sorting action. As the arrays are only distinguished from one another by number, when only a single array is employed by Horowitz as in [0024], that array is a first array.
Regarding claim 4,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the instruction further specifies a first instruction to the controllable array sorting device to start performing the sorting action and a second instruction to the controllable array sorting device to stop performing the sorting action on the target item. Horowitz discloses in [0036] a duration for the activation of its pusher device (controllable array sorting device) which implies the claimed instruction to stop performing a sorting action with the device, and in [0039]-[0040] explicitly discloses actuation and enable/disable signals that also correspond to the start and stop instructions of the claim.
Regarding claim 5,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the instruction further specifies a first instruction and a second instruction, wherein each of the first instruction and the second instruction causes the selected subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to activate in association with performing the sorting action on the target item. Horowitz in [0036] discloses both duration and intensity instructions that may constitute the first and second instructions to the pusher device and its array of diverting mechanisms; the enable/disable instructions of [0040] also may constitute first and second instructions.
Regarding claim 6,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a duration of time for which to perform the sorting action on the target item based at least in part on the attribute associated with the target item, and wherein the instruction further specifies the duration of time. Horowitz discloses the claimed duration in [0036] and in [0044] explains that duration or force may be determined according to the weight of the item to be diverted, which is an attribute of the item.
Regarding claim 7,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a degree of force which to perform the sorting action on the target item based at least in part on the attribute associated with the target item, and wherein the instruction further specifies the degree of force. Horowitz discloses the claimed force in [0036] and in [0044] explains that duration or force may be determined according to the weight of the item to be diverted, which is an attribute of the item.
Regarding claim 8,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the array of diverting mechanisms comprises an array of air orifices (air jets 76: fig. 2) that are coupled to one or more pressurized air sources.
Regarding claim 9,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the array of diverting mechanisms comprises an array of mechanical paddles (paddles 310, 320: fig. 3, [0044]) that are coupled to an actuation mechanism.
Regarding claim 10,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine for the target item, a set of neighboring non-target items on the conveyor device from the sensed data; and determine whether to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item. Horowitz discloses this determination for non-target items in [0024].
Regarding claim 17,
Horowitz discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, from an object recognition device (imaging sensor 52: fig. 1, [0023]), sensed data associated with a set of items (items 34: fig. 1) on a conveyor device (conveyor 32: fig. 1);
determining a target item ([0023]) to be targeted by a controllable array sorting device (pushing device array of fig. 2) based at least in part on the sensed data,
wherein the controllable array sorting device comprises an array of diverting mechanisms (individual air jets 76: fig. 2);
selecting at least a subset of the array of diverting mechanisms based at least in part on an attribute associated with the target item; ([0024], [0044])Horowitz discloses the array subset in [0024] and mechanical sorting considerations based on target item weight in [0044].
and sending an instruction to the controllable array sorting device to cause the controllable array sorting device to use the selected at least subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to perform a sorting action on the target item. ([0024])Horowitz discloses a controller directing the action of its pusher devices (diverting devices); a controller, i.e. a general purpose computer, can only control mechanical devices by means of sending instructions to the devices.
Regarding claim 18,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 17 and also:
further comprising: determining for the target item, a set of neighboring non-target items on the conveyor device from the sensed data; and determining whether to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item.Horowitz discloses this determination for non-target items in [0024].
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 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz in view of Ghadyali, et al., US 2021/0035313 (hereinafter Ghadyali).
Regarding claims 11 and 19,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 10 (parent of claim 11) and claim 18 (parent of claim 19) but not:
wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first polygon associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second polygon associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item. Horowitz does not disclose the claimed polygon method. However, Horowitz teaches distinguishing target from non-target conveyed objects and materials and determining their positions in [0054]-[0056], and fig. 6. This method is compatible with the use of polygons to determine distances.
Ghadyali, an invention in the field of object tracking, teaches:
wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first polygon associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second polygon associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item. Ghadyali teaches the use of polygons in [0236] and the use of distance thresholds in [0291]. In combination with Horowitz’s general method of [0024] and [0054]-[0056], the two references teach the claimed method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Horowitz, wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first polygon associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second polygon associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item, as taught by Ghadyali, because to determine distances between objects identified through image recognition, some aspect of the image must be used as the basis for the distance determination, and the use of bounding boxes or polygons for this purpose is of long provenance and is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 12 and 20,
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 10 (parent of claim 12) and claim 18 (parent of claim 20) but not:
wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first centroid associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second centroid associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item. Horowitz does not disclose the claimed centroid method. However, Horowitz teaches distinguishing target from non-target conveyed objects and materials and determining their positions in [0054]-[0056], and fig. 6. This method is compatible with the use of centroids to determine distances.
Ghadyali, an invention in the field of object tracking, teaches:
wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first centroid associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second centroid associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item. Ghadyali teaches the use of center points (centroids) in [0198] and the use of distance thresholds in [0291]. In combination with Horowitz’s general method of [0024] and [0054]-[0056], the two references teach the claimed method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Horowitz, wherein to determine for the target item, the set of neighboring non-target items from the sensed data comprises to: determine that a distance between a first centroid associated with the target item is less than a predetermined proximity threshold away from a second centroid associated with a non-target item; and in response to the determination, determine that the non-target item comprises a neighboring non-target item, as taught by Ghadyali, because to determine distances between objects identified through image recognition, some aspect of the image must be used as the basis for the distance determination, and the use of object centroids for this purpose is of long provenance and is well known in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz in view of Takanami, et al., WO 2018056417 (hereinafter Takanami).
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claims 10 but not:
wherein to determine whether to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item comprises to: determine a ratio of the attribute associated with the target item to an aggregated attribute of the set of neighboring non-target items; and in the event that the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold ratio, determine not to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item.Horowitz does not disclose a method that employs a ratio of attributes related to the target and adjacent items as part of determining whether to sort the item(s).
Takanami, an invention in the field of sorting, teaches:
wherein to determine whether to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item comprises to: determine a ratio of the attribute associated with the target item to an aggregated attribute of the set of neighboring non-target items; and in the event that the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold ratio, determine not to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item.Takanami teaches this method in its flowchart fig. 3(b) and [0060] with respect to an edge ratio threshold for objects to be sorted. This edge ratio is based per [0057] on the edge area of the objects, the claimed attribute.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Horowitz, wherein to determine whether to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item comprises to: determine a ratio of the attribute associated with the target item to an aggregated attribute of the set of neighboring non-target items; and in the event that the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold ratio, determine not to suppress performing the sorting action on the target item, as taught by Takanami, because as Takanami explains in its background section, [0005]-[0008], their ratio method enables a recycling system to distinguish metal of different types and to sort it as being suitable for recycling based on the type of metal determined by analysis of the claimed ratios. As sorting materials for recycling is a common goal of both the applicant and Takanami, a person of ordinary skill in the art would wish to use Takanami’s ratio method to augment that of Horowitz.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz in view of Chamberlin, et al., US 4,081,362 (hereinafter Chamberlin).
Horowitz discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the controllable array sorting device is configured to use the selected at least subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to perform the sorting action on the target item after the target item falls off one end of the conveyor device. Horowitz’s air jet and paddle diverting mechanisms have the claimed capability but the behavior of diverting after a target object falls off a conveyor is not explicitly disclosed.
Chamberlin, an invention in the field of fruit sorting, teaches the limitation:
wherein the controllable array sorting device (paddle 11: fig. 1) is configured to use the selected at least subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to perform the sorting action on the target item after the target item falls off one end of the conveyor device. Chamberlin teaches in fig. 1 and C2/L15-44 that its mechanical paddle 11 acts on a target object falling from a conveyor. In combination with Horowitz, the controllable array of Horowitz would likewise act on Chamberlin’s falling target item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Horowitz, wherein the controllable array sorting device is configured to use the selected at least subset of the array of diverting mechanisms to perform the sorting action on the target item after the target item falls off one end of the conveyor device, as taught by Chamberlin, because it is commonplace in the art to sort articles from a conveyor in the claimed manner; falling objects require less force for diversion than objects resting on a conveyor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claims 14-15, reference Takanami, cited in the rejection of parent claim 13, teaches sorting based on “edge ratios” of objects, the edge ratio being a function of object area. However, claim 14 requires a ratio of masses while claim 15 requires a ratio of volumes, and no other reference was found teaching a similar ratio for which volume or mass could be substituted within Takanami’s method. CN 116686003 is the closest art found; however, it was published subsequent to applicant’s priority date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,543,986 teaches a controllable array sorting device for conveyors different from applicant’s but compatible with the mechanical limitations of the independent claims. US 2018/0243800 teaches material sorting using a vision system. CN 116686003 teaches object adjacency ratios as the basis for discrimination and sorting of conveyed objects, but with a publication date too late to be citable in rejection of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights