DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-19 remain pending in the application.
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 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGP# 20070162174 of Doke et al. (henceforth Doke) in view of USP# 20240199349 of Deshpande et al. (henceforth Deshpande).
Regarding claim 1, Doke teaches
A system (10) for opening a box (B), the system comprising:
transport equipment (20) configured to displace the box into a cutting zone (area inside 12);
multiple cameras (¶ 0040, “The box dimensions can also be obtained using a vision pattern recognition system, which measures the size of the box based on a calibrated field of view of a camera. A single camera with an isometric view of the box's position can be used to determine the box's size. Alternatively, multiple cameras with views of the box from different axes can be used to determine the box size”), a field of view of each of the cameras being directed toward the cutting zone (¶ 0038-0040 teach laser sensors 52, 56, 70 for measuring dimensions of the box inside the cutting zone. ¶ 0040 teaches sensors 52, 56, 70 can be replaced with multiple cameras to measure the dimensions of the box) and
a cutting tool (100) which cuts the box along a cut path (¶0055, arrows in figs. 10a-10b) generated from the output of the cameras (¶ 0041).
Doke does not disclose the type of camera used and therefore does not explicitly teach
each of the cameras comprises a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) camera configured to output a respective pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box, whereby the cameras output multiple pointclouds.
Deshpande teaches
A system (10) for measuring a box (44), the system comprising: multiple cameras (33, 35, 37), the field of view of each of the cameras being directed toward the box (¶ 0069) and wherein each of the cameras comprises a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) camera (¶ 0050) configured to output a pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box (¶ 0050, 0069), whereby the cameras output multiple pointclouds (¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cameras of Doke with LiDAR cameras that are configured to output a pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box as taught by Deshpande in order to provide the predictable result of reliably producing an accurate measurement of various sized boxes (Deshpande: ¶ 0070, 0073). This makes the system more robust.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the cutting zone is defined in an enclosure (Doke: 12) of the system, and in which the transport equipment is configured to displace the box into the enclosure (Doke: ¶0050, see fig. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 3, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the cameras are positioned in the enclosure (Doke: cameras as described in ¶0040 replace sensors 52, 56, 70 which are inside the enclosure as shown in fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 1, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
a control system (Doke: 40) connected to the cameras (Doke: ¶ 0040-0041, cameras as described in ¶0040 replace sensors 52, 56, 70 which are connected to the control system 40 as described in ¶0041), in which the control system is configured to operate the cutting tool (Doke: ¶0027, 0032), and in which the control system is further configured to operate a robot arm (Doke: 80) which manipulates the cutting tool (Doke: ¶0029).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 5, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the control system includes at least one programmable logic controller (PLC) connected to the robot arm and the transport equipment (Doke: ¶0027).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 5, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the control system includes software configured to fuse the pointclouds received from the respective cameras into a single fused pointcloud (Deshpande teaches using software to fuse pointclouds in ¶ 0072, 0074-0075 and as shown in fig. 18 to obtain a single fused pointcloud in order to obtain the dimensions of the box. Doke teaches in ¶ 0041 using the dimensions of the box to produce the cut path. Therefore, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches this limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Doke teaches
A method of opening a box (B), the method comprising:
displacing (20, ¶ 0050) the box into a cutting zone (zone inside 12) of a box opener system (10);
directing each of multiple cameras (¶ 0040) toward a respective side of the box; and
generating a three dimensional cut path for opening the box from the output of the camera (¶0041 and ¶0055, arrows in figs. 10a-10b).
Doke does not disclose the type of camera used and the output of the camera and therefore Doke does not explicitly teach
fusing pointclouds output by the cameras into a single fused pointcloud
Deshpande teaches
a method of measuring a box (44) comprising directing multiple cameras (33, 35, 37) toward a respective side of the box (see fig. 19); and
fusing pointclouds output by the cameras into a single fused pointcloud (¶ 0072, 0074-0075, fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Doke such that the cameras are LiDAR cameras for outputting pointclouds and fusing pointclouds output by the cameras into a single pointcloud, as taught by Deshpande, in order to provide the predictable result of reliably producing an accurate measurement of various sized boxes (Deshpande: ¶ 0070, 0073). This makes the system more robust.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 8, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which each of the pointclouds comprises spatial data representing at least one of the sides of the box (Deshpande: ¶0074, 0069).
Regarding claim 10, as shown in claim 8, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which each of the cameras comprises a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) camera configured to output a respective one of the pointclouds (Deshpande: ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 11, as shown in claim 8, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the displacing comprises displacing the box into an enclosure (Doke: 12), and in which the cutting zone is defined in the enclosure (Doke: ¶0050, see fig. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in claim 8, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
connecting the cameras to a control system (Doke: 40, see ¶ 0040-0041, cameras as described in ¶0040 replace sensors 52, 56, 70 which are connected to the control system 40 as described in ¶0041), whereby the control system controls operation of a robot arm (Doke: 80, ¶ 0027) in part in response to the fused pointcloud (Doke: ¶ 0041).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in claim 13, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
the robot arm displacing a cutting tool (Doke: 100) along the cut path (Doke: ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in claim 12, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the control system comprises software configured to fuse the pointclouds output by the cameras (Deshpande: ¶ 0072, 0074-0075, fig. 18).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in claim 14, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the software is further configured to produce the cut path at least in part based on the fused pointcloud (Deshpande teaches using software to fuse pointclouds in ¶ 0072, 0074-0075 and as shown in fig. 18 to obtain a single fused pointcloud in order to obtain the dimensions of the box. Doke teaches in ¶ 0041 using the dimensions of the box to produce the cut path. Therefore, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches this limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 16, Doke teaches
A system (10) for opening a box (B), the system comprising:
multiple cameras (¶ 0040), a field of view of each of the cameras being directed toward a cutting zone (¶ 0038-0040 teach laser sensors 52, 56, 70 for measuring dimensions of the box inside the cutting zone. ¶ 0040 teaches sensors 52, 56, 70 can be replaced with multiple cameras to measure the dimensions of the box); and
a control system (40) connected to the cameras (¶ 0040-0041, cameras as described in ¶0040 replace sensors 52, 56, 70 which are connected to the control system 40 as described in ¶0041), in which the control system is configured to operate a cutting tool (100, ¶ 0027, 0032), in which the control system is further configure to operate a robot arm (80, ¶ 0027) which manipulates the cutting tool along a three dimensional cut path (¶ 0029), and in which the control system includes software configured to generate the cut path for the cutting tool based on the output from the cameras (¶0040-0041, and ¶0055, arrows in figs. 10a-10b).
Doke does not disclose the type of camera used and the output of the camera and therefore Doke does not explicitly teach
in which the control system includes software configured to fuse multiple pointclouds received from the cameras into a single fused pointcloud.
Deshpande teaches
A system (10) for measuring a box (44), the system comprising: multiple cameras (33, 35, 37), the field of view of each of the cameras being directed toward the box (¶ 0069) and wherein each of the cameras comprises a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) camera (¶ 0050) configured to output a pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box (¶ 0050, 0069), whereby the cameras output multiple pointclouds (¶ 0069), a control system (100, 101, ¶ 0038), in which the control system includes software configured to fuse multiple pointclouds received from the cameras into a single fused pointcloud (¶ 0072, 0074-0075 and as shown in fig. 18 to obtain a single fused pointcloud in order to obtain the dimensions of the box)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cameras of Doke with LiDAR cameras that are configured to output a pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box and fusing pointclouds output by the cameras into a single pointcloud, as taught by Deshpande in order to provide the predictable result of reliably producing an accurate measurement of various sized boxes (Deshpande: ¶ 0070, 0073). This makes the system more robust.
Regarding claim 17, as shown in claim 16, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which each of the cameras comprises a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) camera configured to output a respective pointcloud comprising spatial data representing at least one side of the box (Deshpande: ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in claim 16, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the cutting zone is defined in an enclosure (12) of the system, and in which the cameras are positioned in the enclosure (Doke: cameras as described in ¶0040 replace sensors 52, 56, 70 which are inside the enclosure as shown in fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 19, as shown in claim 16, the combination of Doke and Deshpande teaches
in which the control system includes at least one programmable logic controller (PLC) connected to the robot arm (Doke: ¶ 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/3/2026 have been fully considered:
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference of Doke being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. For example:
USP 12630326 of Dietz et al. also teaches using cameras (350) to determine the cut path 362 (c. 8, l. 24-46)
USPGP# 20240308714 of Steele JR. et al. teaches an enclosure (fig. 3) as claimed
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights