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
This Office action is in response to the Continuation filed 2/7/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the limitation “provide on the display the one or more images captured by the one or more sensors” recited in claim 1 and the limitation “providing on the display the one or more images captured by the one or more sensors comprises providing on the display: an image of the carton with the one or more products captured by a camera; and a 3D representation of the carton with the one or more products captured by the 3D sensor” recited in claim 18 comprise new matter not previously disclosed by applicant in the application as originally filed. Paragraph 0075 of applicant’s written description discusses displaying images of a carton. In particular, the paragraph discloses “The display 400 may include an image section 410 that provides 2D and/or 3D representations of the carton.” The paragraph does not disclose however that one of the 2D representations is an image captured by a camera or that one of the 3D representations is captured by the 3D sensor. An image of a carton can be generated from sources other than a camera and a 3D representation of a carton can be generated from sources other than a 3D sensor. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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.
Claims 1-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qaddoura (US 9612583 B1) in view of Nokelby (US 2022/0162012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qaddoura discloses a material fill system (100 – Fig. 1A), the system comprising: one or more sensors (132 – Fig. 1A), wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one or more image sensors (col. 4, lines 27-29); a display (col. 4, lines 27-34), wherein the display provides output regarding a packaging process (col. 4, lines 27-34); and a controller (128 – Fig. 4) comprising: one or more memory devices (219 – Fig. 4) with computer-readable program code stored thereon (col. 4, lines 6-9); and one or more processing devices (403 – Fig. 4) operatively coupled to the one or more memory devices, wherein when executed the computer-readable program code is configured to cause the one or more processing devices to: process a plurality of cartons for packaging (as seen in Fig. 1A and disclosed in col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 4, there are at least three cartons being processed) by: receiving a carton volume for a carton (col. 5, lines 5-12); determining a carton void by scanning the carton with one or more products (scanning the carton with sensors to obtain dimensions of the container and products and sending it to the controller: col. 7, lines 26-37 and col. 7, lines 44-48; expressing the dimensions in terms of volume: col. 7, lines 48-52; and using the volumes to calculate a carton void: col. 7, last line – col. 8, line 10) and capture one or more images of the carton with the one or more products using the one or more image sensors (col. 4, lines 27-34); determining a void fill amount for the carton based on the carton void (col. 8, lines 10-12); and sending a notification to dispense the void fill amount for the carton (col. 8, lines 20-31); provide on the display the one or more images captured by the one or more sensors (col. 4, lines 27-34) and store the one or more images captured (); and send carton information for the plurality of cartons to a void fill computer system (col. 7, lines 14-37; note that the void fill computer system is interpreted to be the circuitry of 128 that receive the carton information).
However, Qaddoura does not disclose storing the one or more images captured.
Nokelby teaches a system wherein an image of a carton is stored for future analysis (para. 0029) in order to allow a carton to be checked for damage (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the processing of Qaddoura to store the image of the carton for future analysis as taught by Nokelby in order to allow the carton to be checked for damage.
Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, further teaches (citations are to Qaddoura unless otherwise noted):
Claim 2, the carton volume is a maximum fill volume (col. 5, lines 5-12, the volume of the container is also the maximum fill volume of the container since it a container can be filled up to its volume but not beyond).
Claim 3, receiving the carton volume comprises: identifying a carton height, a carton length, and a carton width using the one or more sensors (col. 6, lines 8-18).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Qaddoura and Nokelby disclose essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 3 and further teach identifying a height, length, and a width of a carton using the one or more sensors (col. 6, lines 10-16, Qaddoura), wherein the one or more sensors are one or more overhead sensors (see Fig. 1A, Qaddoura).
However, Qaddoura and Langen do not expressly disclose how the height, length, and width are identified.
Concerning the measurement of the height, it is noted that there are only a limited number of techniques that may be used to measure the height of a carton. At this point it is noted that one of the indicators of the top of the carton is a top fold where a flap is located and the indicator of the bottom of the carton is where a bottom edge is located. Similarly, concerning the measurement of the length and the width, edges indicate the span of the length and the width where the edges can be measured at the opening of the carton, the bottom of the carton, or one of the sides of the carton.
Therefore, although Qaddoura and Nokelby do not expressly disclose how the height, length, and width are measured, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have measured the height of the carton by identifying a position of a flap fold using the sensor and identifying a distance between the flap fold and a bottom edge of the carton, and to have identified the length and the width of the carton by identifying and measuring the two or more edges of an opening of the carton since there are only a limited number of options for measuring the dimensions of the carton and these options are readily available and direct using the one or more sensors of Qaddoura.
Claim 6, identifying a carton identifier using the one or more sensors; accessing stored carton identifiers that correspond to the plurality of cartons; comparing the carton identifier with the stored carton identifiers; and identifying a dedicated carton as the carton and determining the carton volume for the dedicated carton when the carton identifier meets a stored carton identifier from the stored carton identifiers (col. 10, lines 5-15).
Claim 7, the carton identifier may comprise a carton length, a carton height, a carton width, a carton tag, a carton label, a carton barcode, a carton QR code, a carton RFID tag, a carton character, or a carton color (col. 7, lines 17-23).
Claim 8, receiving the carton volume comprises: receiving a redundant carton selection and determining the carton volume for the redundant carton (col. 10, lines 5-7).
Claim 9, determining the carton void comprises taking a difference between the carton volume and a current carton volume and providing the current void fill amount based on the difference (col. 7, last line – col. 8, line 12).
Claim 10, determining the current carton volume comprises identifying a product volume for the one or more products in the carton using the one or more sensors (col. 7, lines 26-33; col. 7, lines 44-52; and col. 7, last line – col. 8, line 12).
Claim 11, identifying the current carton volume of the carton comprising identifying a pre-fill material volume for pre-fill material in the carton (col. 7, lines 7 – col. 8, line 10; each item included in the container is interpreted to be pre-fill material).
Claim 12, a void fill dispenser system (112 – Fig. 1A) that received notification to dispense the void fill amount for the carton and dispenses the void fill amount to the carton (col. 8, lines 20-23).
Claim 13, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Chudy, does not expressly disclose how the carton information based on the carton void determined and the void fill amount is expressed.
In this case, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to have expressed the carton information using void fill percentage since there are only a limited number of ways to express the carton information and expressing this kind of information as a percentage is a common mathematical technique.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have expressed the carton information as a void fill percentage since Qaddoura already discloses the base information and expressing such information in terms of a percentage is a common mathematical technique.
Claim 17, the one or more sensors comprise a camera, a laser, a light curtain, radar, LiDAR, infrared, a near-field communication device, or a RFID detector (col. 4, lines 18-29).
Claim 20, when executed the computer-readable program code is configured to cause the one or more processing devices to: receive a new void fill amount for one or more cartons of the plurality of cartons from a user computer system located remotely from the material (col. 7, lines 6-13; col. 7, lines 53-63); and process the plurality of cartons using the new void fill amount (col. 8, lines 23-26).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qaddoura (US 9612583 B1) in view of Nokelby (US 2022/0162012 A1), Langen (US 2022/0063914 A1), and JP ‘090 (JP 2020535090 A). Note that citations to JP ‘090 refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 14, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, further teaches the void fill computer system determines for one or more cartons of the plurality of cartons a recipe (col. 8, lines 12-19), wherein the recipe comprises a recommended void fill amount (col. 8, lines 10-14).
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, does not disclose that the recipe comprises a recommended carton, and a recommended product.
Langen teaches a system for packaging items comprising one or more processing devices (para. 0167), wherein the one or more processing devices are configurated to: determine a recipe for a product (para. 0305-0309), wherein the recipe comprises a recommended void fill amount (para. 0308), a recommended carton (para. 0307), and a recommended product configuration (0334). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Langen, would have recognized that the recipe and notification of Langen provides of means of reducing waste by tailoring the dunnage and carton to the product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the processing devices of Qaddoura to provide a recipe and notification as taught by Langen in order to reduce waste.
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby and Langen, does not teach that the recipe is for future packaging.
JP ‘090 teaches a system, wherein the system comprises a sensor, memory, and a processing device (abstract), wherein the processing device is configured to determine for the processing of one or more articles, a recipe for future use (pg. 20, last paragraph, first 11 lines) in order to improve the efficiency of the system (pg. 20, last 3 lines). In this case, JP ‘090 is interpreted to be analogous prior art because JP ‘090 solved the same problem with which applicant is concerned, namely determining and saving different operational configurations (i.e., recipe) for different respective object geometries to be processed for future use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the material fill system of Qaddoura, as already modified by Nokelby and Langen, such that it determines a recipe for future packaging as suggested by JP ‘090 in order to improve the efficiency of the material fill system.
Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, Langen, and JP ‘090, further teaches:
Claim 15, the recipe is based on at least on recipe characteristics comprising a fill type, a carton type, or product information (col. 8, lines 12-19, Qaddoura).
Claim 16, essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 14.
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, Langen and JP ‘090 does not expressly teach increasing or decreasing the amount of the recommended void fill amount based on supplier or customer preference.
In this case, the examiner takes Official Notice that tailoring a process to customer or supplier preference is old and well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the recipe such that it comprises an increase or decrease of the recommended void fill amount based on supplier preference or customer preference since tailoring a process is old and well-known in the art and would provide the benefit of making improving the possibility of doing repeat business with a supplier or customer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qaddoura (US 9612583 B1) in view of Nokelby (US 2022/0162012 A1) and Pettersson (EP 2509875 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Qaddoura and Nokelby teach essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1 and further teaches providing on the display the one or more images captured by the one or more sensors comprises providing on the display: an image of the carton with the one or more products captured by a camera (col. 4, lines 27-34; note that 104 are already packed with products, col. 3, lines 10-11, Qaddoura).
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, does not expressly teach a 3D representation of the carton with the one or more products captured by a 3D sensor is provided on the display.
Pettersson teaches a material fill system comprising: one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a 3D sensor (246 – Fig. 2A and para. 0057) and one or more displays (250 – Fig. 2A), wherein a 3D representation of items captured by the 3D sensor is provided on the one or more displays (paras. 0015 and 0022). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Pettersson would have recognized that the 3D sensor of Pettersson is an alternative to the one or more sensors of Qaddoura since the 3D sensor of Pettersson and the one or more sensors of Qaddoura are used for generating an image of items and displaying those items on a screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Qaddoura, as already modified by Nokelby to include a 3D sensor and provide a 3D representation captured by the 3D sensor on a display as taught by Pettersson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion in order to provide a backup system to the camera of Qaddoura, thereby improving the reliability of the system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qaddoura (US 9612583 B1) in view of Nokelby (US 2022/0162012 A1) and Moller Dominguez (US 2022/0165114 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Qaddoura, as modified by Nokelby, does not expressly teach when executed the computer-readable program code is configured to: provide on the display the carton information for the carton being processed.
Moller Dominguez discloses providing on a display carton information for a carton being processed (paras. 0065 - 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the computer-readable code to cause the one or more processing devices of Qaddoura to provide on the display the carton information for the carton being processed as suggested by Moller Dominguez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow an operator to confirm that the correct container is being processed, thereby improving the reliability of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
12/23/2025