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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0179981 A1) in view of Prater et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,050,938 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Bellar discloses a method for processing items (Abstract of Bellar, method for relabeling items), the method comprising: receiving, in a sorting system, an item ([0012] of Bellar, items processed in automated sorting and relabeling system; [0015] of Bellar, receiving systems used as an intake system), the sorting system comprising a scanner ([0015] of Bellar, system includes a scanner); scanning, by the scanner, a label on an item ([0016] of Bellar, scanner scans the item for a sorting label; automatically redirecting the item to a relabeling component within the sorting system based on the assigned error designation ([0018] of Bellar, system determines if label is missing or unreadable); applying a new label to the item ([0018] of Bellar, system relabels item with sorting label if initial label was missing or unreadable); receiving delivery information for the item; and associating the delivery information with the new label ([0018] of Bellar, sorting label identifies a locating where the item should be sent and system sends the item to that location based on information on the sorting label; system would therefore receive and associate this delivery information with the sorting label).
Bellar does not specifically disclose assigning an error designation to the item based on the scanning. Moreover, Bellar discloses that the computing system determines if label is missing or unreadable ([0017] of Bellar), but does not specifically disclose assigning an error designation to the item based on the scanning. Items with unreadable or missing labels would necessarily be assigned some type of designation by the system of Bellar. In addition, Prater discloses a package handling system wherein packages with missing data resulting from the scanning of a label on the package are assigned an error designation (Abstract, 9:26-10:60 of Prater). According to Prater, by assigning an error designation the system can be modified to correct the error (9:13-25 of Prater). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assig an error designation to the item based on the scanning in the method of Prater. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to be modified to correct the error as taught by Prater (9:13-25 of Prater).
Regarding claim 3, Prater suggests that assigning the error designation to the item comprises determining, by the scanner, that the label cannot be fully read (10:7-9 of Prater).
Regarding claim 4, Bellar discloses that determining that the label cannot be fully read comprises determining that a computer readable code on the label is incomplete or damaged ([0016] of Bellar, label can be a UPC which is a computer readable code; [0012] of Bellar, label is unreadable; an unreadable label is necessarily incomplete or damaged).
Regarding claim 5, Prater suggests that the label has a delivery point indicated thereon, and wherein determining the label cannot be fully read comprises determining that a delivery point cannot be interpreted by the scanner (19:51-52 of Prater).
Regarding claim 11, Bellar discloses a system for sorting and relabeling items ([0012] of Bellar, automated sorting and relabeling system), the system comprising: a sorting component comprising: at least one conveyor lane configured to transport a plurality of items, each of the items having a label thereon ([0012] of Bellar, system includes a main conveyor; [0012] of Bellar, system scans label of each item); a scanner configured to read the label on each of the plurality of items to identify any of the plurality of items having unreadable or unscannable labels thereon ([0015] of Bellar, system includes a scanner; [0016] of Bellar, scanner scans the item; [0017] of Bellar, system identifies item with missing or unreadable labels based on scanning); and a relabeling component configured to apply a new label to each of the items having unreadable or unscannable labels thereon ([0018] of Bellar, system includes a printer device to print labels for the item that does not have an expected label).
Bellar does not specifically disclose the system comprising a sorter configured to redirect items traveling on the at least one conveyor lane having unreadable or unscannable labels thereon and applying the new label to the redirected item. Prater, however, discloses a package handling system wherein packages with unreadable or missing labels are diverted away from the processing path for additional processing (9:1-12 of Prater). According to Prater, the package diverter allows mislabeled packages to be further processed while properly labeled packages continue along the process path (9:6-12 of Prater). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Bellar with a sorter configured to redirect items traveling on the at least one conveyor lane having unreadable or unscannable labels thereon. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow mislabeled packages to be further processed while properly labeled packages continue along the process path as taught by Prater (9:6-12 of Prater).
Regarding claim 12, Bellar discloses the system further comprising one or more processors in communication with the sorting component ([0030] of Bellar, system includes a computing device with one or more processors), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive delivery information for one the items having unreadable or unscannable labels thereon ([0016] of Bellar, computing device receives information on items having missing or compromised labels); associate the received delivery information for the one item of the redirected items with the new label applied to the one item of the redirected items ([0018] of Bellar, computing device used to generate new label for items having missing or compromised labels).
Claims 2, 6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellar in view of Prater as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Woltjer at al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0030102 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bellar does not specifically disclose the method further comprising prior to scanning a label on an item, singulating the items, via an automatic singulator. Woltjer, however, discloses an article separation conveyor system comprising a singulator for separating articles traveling side by side down the conveyor (Abstract, [0002] of Woltjer). According to Woltjer, the singulator allows the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing ([0003] of Woltjer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to singulate the items in the modified method via an automatic singulator. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing as taught by Woltjer ([0003] of Woltjer).
Regarding claim 6, Bellar discloses that redirecting the item to a relabeling component comprises: determining that the item was scanned for a first time ([0017] of Bellar, item with unreadable or missing label identified by computing system; identifying the item as having an unreadable label would necessarily involve determining that the item was scanned a first time); but does not disclose redirecting the item being scanned for the first time to a flatten and face area of the sorting system. Woltjer, however, discloses an article separation conveyor system comprising destacking and aligning conveyors for articles traveling down the conveyor for identification at a downstream scanning device (Abstract, [0002] of Woltjer). According to Woltjer, the aligner allows the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing ([0003] of Woltjer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divert the items in the modified method to destacking and aligning conveyors. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing as taught by Woltjer ([0003] of Woltjer). Destacking and aligning would change the orientation of the item and would therefore result in reducing the height (i.e., flattening) and changing the orientation (i.e., facing) of the item.
Regarding claim 15, Bellar discloses an item relabeling area configured to apply a new label to any items with an unreadable or unscannable label ([0018] of Bellar, system includes a printer device to print labels for the item that does not have an expected label) but does not specifically disclose that the relabeling component comprises a flatten and face area configured to flatten any bags and singulate any non singulated items. Woltjer, however, discloses an article separation conveyor system comprising destacking and aligning conveyors for articles traveling down the conveyor for identification at a downstream scanning device (Abstract, [0002] of Woltjer). According to Woltjer, the aligner allows the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing ([0003] of Woltjer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divert the items in the modified method to destacking and aligning conveyors. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing as taught by Woltjer ([0003] of Woltjer). Destacking and aligning would change the orientation of the item and would therefore result in reducing the height (i.e., flattening) and changing the orientation (i.e., facing) of the item.
Regarding claim 16, Bellar discloses that the scanner is further configured to: determine that one or more items of the plurality of items were scanned for a first time ([0017] of Bellar, item with unreadable or missing label identified by computing system; identifying the item as having an unreadable label would necessarily involve determining that the item was scanned a first time) but does not specifically disclose that the scanner is configured to redirect the item being scanned for the first time to a flatten and face area of the sorting system. Woltjer, however, discloses an article separation conveyor system comprising destacking and aligning conveyors for articles traveling down the conveyor for identification at a downstream scanning device (Abstract, [0002] of Woltjer). According to Woltjer, the aligner allows the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing ([0003] of Woltjer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divert the items in the modified method to destacking and aligning conveyors. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the system to receive data from the articles from the scanner necessary to sort and divert the articles for downstream processing as taught by Woltjer ([0003] of Woltjer). Destacking and aligning would change the orientation of the item and would therefore result in reducing the height (i.e., flattening) and changing the orientation (i.e., facing) of the item.
Claims 7-9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellar in view of Prater as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ryan at al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0286019 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bellar does not specifically disclose that associating the delivery information with the new label comprises: capturing an image of the label on the item; transmitting the image to an image processing system; extracting the delivery information from the label on the item; and associating the extracted delivery information with the new label. Bellar, however, discloses scanning the item for other indicia from which identifying information can be detected ([0016] of Bellar). Ryan discloses a method for correlating information to facilitate automated sortation (Abstract of Ryan) wherein incomplete routing information for an item resulting from scanning a label on the item is supplemented by capturing an image of the label on the item and conducting further processing of the image by the system such as OCR ([0041] of Ryan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use further processing of an image obtained by scanning the item since Ryan establishes that it was known to use such methods to extract information from labels in an automated sortation method ([0041] of Ryan). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Ryan discloses that extracting item or delivery information from a previous label of the item comprises: transmitting the image of the label on the item to an automatic processing component; and automatically converting text from the previous label into a digital format ([0041] of Ryan, further processing of image involves performing OCR which converts text to a digital format).
Regarding claim 9, Ryan discloses that extracting item or delivery information from the label on the item comprises: transmitting the image of the previous label to a manual processing unit; and manually converting text from the previous label into a digital format ([0265] of Ryan, system invokes manual intervention after threshold number of scanning attempts wherein a human operator inputs missing data; input of missing data manually would necessarily involve manual conversion of information such as text from the label into a digital format).
Regarding claim 13, Bellar does not specifically disclose that the scanner is further configured to image the label on each of the plurality of items, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive the image of the label on one of the plurality of items and automatically convert text from the image into a digital format to generate the delivery information. Bellar, however, discloses scanning the item for other indicia from which identifying information can be detected ([0016] of Bellar). Ryan discloses a method for correlating information to facilitate automated sortation (Abstract of Ryan) wherein incomplete routing information for an item resulting from scanning a label on the item is supplemented by capturing an image of the label on the item and conducting further processing of the image by the system such as OCR ([0041] of Ryan). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the scanner and processors in the system of Bellar to image the label and to automatically convert text from the image into a digital format to generate the delivery information since Ryan establishes that it was known to use systems configured in this manner to extract information from labels in an automated sortation method ([0041] of Ryan). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Ryan discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to receive the delivery information from a manual processing component configured to receive an image of a label on an item and manually convert text from the image into a digital format ([0265] of Ryan, system invokes manual intervention after threshold number of scanning attempts wherein a human operator inputs missing data; input of missing data manually would necessarily involve manual conversion of information such as text from the label into a digital format).
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellar in view of Ryan.
Regarding claim 17, Bellar discloses a method for relabeling items (Abstract of Bellar, method for relabeling items), the method comprising: applying a new label to an item (Abstract of Bellar, new label printed and applied to item); extracting item or delivery information from the previous label of the item ([0016] of Bellar, label on item scanned by a scanner; [0012] of Bellar, label includes information used by sorting system); associating the item or delivery information with the new label ([0018] of Bellar, item information associated with new label); and uploading the new label and item or delivery information to a database ([0033] of Bellar, system includes databases which can be automatically updated by adding items to the databases).
Bellar does not specifically disclose: capturing an image of the previous label applied to the item; and transmitting the image to an image processing system. Ryan, however, discloses a method for correlating information to facilitate automated sortation (Abstract of Ryan) wherein incomplete routing information for an item resulting from scanning a label on the item is supplemented by capturing an image of the label on the item and conducting further processing of the image by an image processing system (i.e., OCR) ([0041] of Ryan) which necessarily involves transmitting the image to the processing system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to capture an image of the label and to transmit the image to an image processing system in the method of Bellar since Ryan establishes that it was known to use systems configured in this manner to extract information from labels in an automated sortation method ([0041] of Ryan). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Ryan discloses that extracting item or delivery information from a previous label of the item comprises: transmitting the image to an automatic processing component ([0041] of Ryan, system captures and transmits image data for OCR processing); automatically converting text from a previous label into a digital format ([0041] of Ryan, OCR processing inherently involves converting text into a digital format); determining the result of the automatic conversion ([0041] of Ryan, system attempts to extract routing data from converted text); transmitting the image to a manual processing unit if the result of the automatic conversion is unsuccessful ([0265] of Ryan, system invokes manual intervention after repeated scanning attampts); and manually converting text from a previous label into a digital format if the result of the automatic conversion is unsuccessful ([0265] of Ryan, human operator determines and inputs missing routing data).
Regarding claim 20, Bellar discloses the method further comprising sending the item or delivery information to a device that scans the new label ([0019] of Bellar, relabeled item is rescanned).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellar in view of Ryan as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Fethke et al. (International Patent Publication No. WO 2006/012939 A1, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 18, Bellar does not specifically disclose that applying a new label to an item comprises applying the new label to the item at a location proximate the previous label. Fethke, however, discloses relabeling items by applying a new label over the old label ([0005] of Fethke). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the new label over the original label in the modified method since Fethke establishes that it was known to relabel items in this manner ([0005] of Fethke). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The top of the old label a location proximate (i.e., close to) the previous label.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art is to Bellar. Bellar discloses a method for processing items (Abstract of Bellar, method for relabeling items), the method comprising: receiving, in a sorting system, an item ([0012] of Bellar, items processed in automated sorting and relabeling system; [0015] of Bellar, receiving systems used as an intake system), the sorting system comprising a scanner ([0015] of Bellar, system includes a scanner); scanning, by the scanner, a label on an item ([0016] of Bellar, scanner scans the item for a sorting label; automatically redirecting the item to a relabeling component within the sorting system based on the assigned error designation ([0018] of Bellar, system determines if label is missing or unreadable); applying a new label to the item ([0018] of Bellar, system relabels item with sorting label if initial label was missing or unreadable); receiving delivery information for the item; and associating the delivery information with the new label ([0018] of Bellar, sorting label identifies a locating where the item should be sent and system sends the item to that location based on information on the sorting label; system would therefore receive and associate this delivery information with the sorting label). While Prater provides motivation to assigning an error designation to the item based on the scanning (Abstract, 9:26-10:60 of Prater), neither Bellar, Prater nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a method as recited in claim 10 comprising capturing, by a relabeling scanner, an image of the item, the image including both the label and the new label.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights