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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “53” has been used to designate both a first sensor (Paragraph 0059 lines 6-7) and the first conveyor (Paragraph 0059 line 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one sensor configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit and to output measurement information” in claim 7 and 14 (see Paragraph 0028).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-9 and 17 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the collecting arrangement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 previously recited “the collection arrangement”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the collection arrangement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim previously recited “a collecting arrangement”.
Claims 3-9 are rejected as they are dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reist (US 2003/0015837).
Regarding claim 17, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches a method for sorting residual hand mail items (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-7), comprising:
feeding a residual hand mail item (Fig. 7 #4) from an infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) to an output conveyor (Fig. 7 conveyor along ‘X’) so that the residual hand mail item is arranged in a collecting arrangement on the output conveyor (Fig. 7 #4 arranged in arrangement #30 on conveyor along ‘X’);
transporting the residual hand mail item on the output conveyor in the collection arrangement (Fig. 7 transporting #4 in #30 along direction ‘X’).
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.
Claim 1-5, 10-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reist (US 2003/0015837) in view of Rudy (US 5755336).
Regarding claim 1, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-7), comprising:
an infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) configured to convey at least one residual hand mail item in a first direction (Fig. 7 direction ‘Z’);
at least one distribution conveyor (Fig. 7 #10, 33) configured to take over the at least one residual hand mail item from the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #10 takes over #4 from #1) and to convey it to at least one output conveyor (Fig. 7#10, 33 convey #4 to conveyor along ‘X’; Paragraph 0042 lines 15-20); and
a control unit (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-13) configured to control the device such that residual hand mail items are collected on the output conveyor in a collection arrangement (Fig. 7 #4 collected in arrangement #30);
wherein the output conveyor (Fig. 7 see conveyor along ‘X’) is configured to convey the collection arrangement (Fig. 7 #30) of residual hand mail items in a second direction (Fig. 7 direction ‘X’).
Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching a control unit configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor such that residual hand mail items are collected in a collection arrangement.
Rudy (US 5755336) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 6-12), comprising: a control unit (Fig. 1 #76) configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor (Col. 7 lines 20-29) such that residual hand mail items are collected in a collection arrangement (Col. 8 lines 16-30).
Rudy (US 5755336) explains that the control unit compares a signal from an optical processor to preselected categories, and includes a means for sending an output signal to the sorting means based on the category which the document belongs, and whereby the sorting means collates the documents into the appropriate category (Col. 7 lines 20-29). Rudy (US 5755336) further explains that the documents can be categorized based on varying criteria and the processing may be performed at an extremely high rate (Col. 7 lines 41-55).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include a control unit configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor such that residual hand mail items are collected in a collection arrangement as taught by Rudy (US 5755336) in order to control the distribution conveyor based on the category which the residual hand mail item belongs.
Regarding claim 2, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein at least two residual hand mail items (Fig. 7 #4) at least partially overlap in the collecting arrangement (Fig. 7 #4 at least partially overlap in #30).
Regarding claim 3, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor in the collection arrangement.
Rudy (US 5755336) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 6-12), wherein the control unit (Fig. 1 #76) is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item (Col. 7 lines 20-29) in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor (Fig. 1 #15 arranged on #92) in the collection arrangement (Figs. 1, 3 see #15 arranged in #90 on #92).
Rudy (US 5755336) explains that the control unit compares a signal from an optical processor to preselected categories, and includes a means for sending an output signal to the sorting means based on the category which the document belongs, and whereby the sorting means collates the documents into the appropriate category (Col. 7 lines 20-29). Rudy (US 5755336) further explains that the documents can be categorized based on varying criteria and the processing may be performed at an extremely high rate (Col. 7 lines 41-55).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the control unit is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor in the collection arrangement as taught by Rudy (US 5755336) in order to control the distribution conveyor based on the category which the residual hand mail item belongs, and categorize the residual hand mail items based on varying criteria.
Regarding claim 4, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 3, wherein the distribution conveyor (Fig. 7 #10, 33) is inclined with respect to the infeed conveyor and/or the outlet conveyor (Fig. 7 #33 inclined with respect to #1 and conveyor along ‘X’).
Regarding claim 5, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 4, wherein the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) comprises at least one pivotable conveyor module (Fig. 5 see pivotable #3) configured to convey the residual hand mail item (Fig. 5 #3 configured to convey #4) either to the distribution conveyor (Fig. 7 #3 configured to convey #4 to #10, 33) or to convey it further on the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #3 configured to convey #4 further along #1).
Regarding claim 10, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor in the collection arrangement.
Rudy (US 5755336) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 6-12), wherein the control unit (Fig. 1 #76) is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item (Col. 7 lines 20-29) in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor (Fig. 1 #15 arranged on #92) in the collection arrangement (Figs. 1, 3 see #15 arranged in #90 on #92).
Rudy (US 5755336) explains that the control unit compares a signal from an optical processor to preselected categories, and includes a means for sending an output signal to the sorting means based on the category which the document belongs, and whereby the sorting means collates the documents into the appropriate category (Col. 7 lines 20-29). Rudy (US 5755336) further explains that the documents can be categorized based on varying criteria and the processing may be performed at an extremely high rate (Col. 7 lines 41-55).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the control unit is configured to control the distribution conveyor and/or the output conveyor based on at least one piece of information about the at least one residual hand mail item in such a way that the residual hand mail item is arranged on the output conveyor in the collection arrangement as taught by Rudy (US 5755336) in order to control the distribution conveyor based on the category which the residual hand mail item belongs, and categorize the residual hand mail items based on varying criteria.
Regarding claim 11, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the distribution conveyor (Fig. 7 #10, 33) is inclined with respect to the infeed conveyor and/or the outlet conveyor (Fig. 7 #33 inclined with respect to #1 and conveyor along ‘X’).
Regarding claim 12, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) comprises at least one pivotable conveyor module (Fig. 5 see pivotable #3) configured to convey the residual hand mail item (Fig. 5 #3 configured to convey #4) either to the distribution conveyor (Fig. 7 #3 configured to convey #4 to #10, 33) or to convey it further on the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #3 configured to convey #4 further along #1).
Regarding claim 14, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit and to output measurement information.
Rudy (US 5755336) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 6-12), wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor (Fig. 1 #230, Col. 10 lines 7-11) configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit (Col. 10 lines 7-19) and to output measurement information (Col. 10 lines 7-11).
Rudy (US 5755336) explains that the width determining means allows the apparatus to process different types of documents, wherein the sortation criteria of the documents is modified if the width is of a first specific size or a second specific size, and wherein the document may be sorted to a specific collection arrangement based on the determined width (Col. 10 lines 7-19).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit and to output measurement information as taught by Rudy (US 5755336) in order to sort a residual hand mail item based on the size thereof, therefore enabling the device to process different types of documents simultaneously.
Regarding claim 16, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) has at least one input conveyor (Fig. 2 #1.1) configured to receive residual hand mail items (Fig. 2 #4) and to place them on the infeed conveyor (Fig. 2 #1.1 configured to place #4 on #1.2).
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reist (US 2003/0015837) in view of Rudy (US 5755336) and further in view of Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059).
Regarding claim 6, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 5, wherein the output conveyor comprises at least a first conveyor section and a second conveyor section, wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section.
Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the output conveyor (Fig. 1 #300) comprises at least a first conveyor section (Fig. 6 #310) and a second conveyor section (Fig. 6 #320), wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction (Fig. 6 #310 arranged upstream #320 in conveying direction of #300) and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section (Fig. 6 #310 is inclined relative to #320).
Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) explains that the first conveyor section is angled so as to better direct the flow of items towards the second conveyor section (Paragraph 0030 lines 2-10).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the output conveyor comprises at least a first conveyor section and a second conveyor section, wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section as taught by Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) in order to better direct the flow of items in the output conveyor.
Regarding claim 7, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 6, wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit and to output measurement information.
Rudy (US 5755336) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 6-12), wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor (Fig. 1 #230, Col. 10 lines 7-11) configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit (Col. 10 lines 7-19) and to output measurement information (Col. 10 lines 7-11).
Rudy (US 5755336) explains that the width determining means allows the apparatus to process different types of documents, wherein the sortation criteria of the documents is modified if the width is of a first specific size or a second specific size, and wherein the document may be sorted to a specific collection arrangement based on the determined width (Col. 10 lines 7-19).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the residual hand sorting device has at least one sensor configured to detect whether or not a residual hand mail item exceeds a collection arrangement limit and to output measurement information as taught by Rudy (US 5755336) in order to sort a residual hand mail item based on the size thereof, therefore enabling the device to process different types of documents simultaneously.
Regarding claim 13, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 1, wherein the output conveyor comprises at least a first conveyor section and a second conveyor section, wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section.
Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the output conveyor (Fig. 1 #300) comprises at least a first conveyor section (Fig. 6 #310) and a second conveyor section (Fig. 6 #320), wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction (Fig. 6 #310 arranged upstream #320 in conveying direction of #300) and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section (Fig. 6 #310 is inclined relative to #320).
Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) explains that the first conveyor section is angled so as to better direct the flow of items towards the second conveyor section (Paragraph 0030 lines 2-10).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the output conveyor comprises at least a first conveyor section and a second conveyor section, wherein the first conveyor section is arranged upstream in the conveying direction and is inclined relative to the second conveyor section as taught by Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) in order to better direct the flow of items in the output conveyor.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reist (US 2003/0015837) in view of Rudy (US 5755336), Noll Jr. (US 2010/0320059) and further in view of Martin (US 3658322).
Regarding claim 8, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 7, wherein the control unit is configured to control the output conveyor based on the measurement information.
Martin (US 3658322) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 49-64), wherein the control unit (Fig. 4 #27) is configured to control the output conveyor (Fig. 4 #17) based on the measurement information (Col. 2 lines 43-65).
Martin (US 3658322) explains that the conveyor speed can be adjusted in accordance with the ratio of width and length of the item as well as the ratio of shingle (overlap) desired (Col. 2 lines 60-65), and explains that if multiple items are of equal width they may be handled simultaneously, and if the multiple items are of different width they may be handled separately (Col. 2 lines 13-22). Martin (US 3658322) explains that by stacking multiple items of equal width, the system may operate at higher speeds with the same efficiency as handling each item individually (Col. 1 lines 13-17).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the control unit is configured to control the output conveyor based on the measurement information as taught by Martin (US 3658322) in order to adjust the amount of overlap between each residual hand mail item depending on the size of each item.
Regarding claim 9, Reist (US 2003/0015837) teaches the residual hand sorting device according to claim 8, wherein the infeed conveyor (Fig. 7 #1) has at least one input conveyor (Fig. 2 #1.1) configured to receive residual hand mail items (Fig. 2 #4) and to place them on the infeed conveyor (Fig. 2 #1.1 configured to place #4 on #1.2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reist (US 2003/0015837) in view of Rudy (US 5755336) and further in view of Martin (US 3658322).
Regarding claim 15, Reist (US 2003/0015837) lacks teaching the residual hand sorting device according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to control the output conveyor based on the measurement information.
Martin (US 3658322) teaches a residual hand sorting device for sorting residual hand mail items (Col. 1 lines 49-64), wherein the control unit (Fig. 4 #27) is configured to control the output conveyor (Fig. 4 #17) based on the measurement information (Col. 2 lines 43-65).
Martin (US 3658322) explains that the conveyor speed can be adjusted in accordance with the ratio of width and length of the item as well as the ratio of shingle (overlap) desired (Col. 2 lines 60-65), and explains that if multiple items are of equal width they may be handled simultaneously, and if the multiple items are of different width they may be handled separately (Col. 2 lines 13-22). Martin (US 3658322) explains that by stacking multiple items of equal width, the system may operate at higher speeds with the same efficiency as handling each item individually (Col. 1 lines 13-17).
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 Reist (US 2003/0015837) to include wherein the control unit is configured to control the output conveyor based on the measurement information as taught by Martin (US 3658322) in order to adjust the amount of overlap between each residual hand mail item depending on the size of each item.
Conclusion
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