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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on Feb. 20, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,338,084 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 5,520,013) in view of Ingram (US 3,831,293) and Burgel (US 9,334,126).
Interpretative note 1. Claim 1 does not further limit and/or define "set location" other than a location on a conveyor that is "outside of the cabinet". Consequently, any location on a conveyor is a set location as long as it is outside of a cabinet.
Interpretative note 2. Cabinet is defined as "a chamber having temperature and humidity controls and used especially for incubating biological samples." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cabinet). In other words, an enclosure, chamber or housing with the ability to have temperature controls is equivalent to a cabinet.
Interpretative note 3. Claim 1 does not further limit or define "set location". Location is defined as " a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature". (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/location) And, set is defined as " to adjust (a device and especially a measuring device) to a desired position". (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/set.) Thus, a set location is to adjust (a device and especially a measuring device) to a desired position occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature. In this case, a conveyor that conveys an article such that another process may be performed thereon is equivalent to a set location. As shown in the rejection below Burgel's disclosure of a "correct location" relative to positioner 62 is a set location insomuch as conveyor 10 conveys an article to the correct position for pickup by a robot. Kuo also discloses a location on a conveyor, e.g. the end location of conveyor 20, that is external to a cabinet which is interpreted as a set location because it is external to a cabinet.
Kuo discloses a container repository for containers, a container repository comprising:
a chamber 10, e.g. cabinet, having an interior;
a conveyor 20 (FIG. 1) disposed in an interior of a cabinet 10 and extending out of a cabinet, a conveyor configured to transport containers toward a set location outside of a cabinet; and,
a holder 23, 24 (FIG. 2) disposed in an interior of a cabinet, a container holder configured to dispense containers toward a conveyor.
Kuo discloses a holder configured to dispense containers toward a conveyor and does not disclose a container holder or a container positioner.
Ingram discloses an enclosure 26 for maintaining a temperature-controlled environment. Within the enclosure Ingram has in place a positioner 114, 114a-114e for positioning "containers, boxes, bags, and foils for various products such as, for example, pizza, poultry parts or whole birds, meat portions and fish sticks. The system minimizes labor and maximizes efficiency, and is mechanically reliable. Moreover, it can be installed at a lower initial cost than present systems and requires minimum floor space. The system is also versatile enough to, with minor adjustment, accommodate stacks of different heights, and different height trays." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a container positioner, as taught by Ingram, for purposes of versatility thereby lowering overall costs and reducing floor space requirements.
And, Burgel discloses dispensing articles from article holders 31-37 to a conveyor 10. Belt conveyor 10 conveys articles from holders 31-37 to a "correct position", e.g. a set location, whereupon a container positioner 62 such as "an industrial robot to pick up" the article for further processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a conveyor configured to transport containers toward a set location and a container positioner configured to position containers in a set location, as taught by Burgel, thereby providing a system which may dispense differing varieties and sizes of products.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Ingram and Burgel and further in view of Hironaka (US 11,001,453) which discloses a container positioner 31a, 31b configured to move containers relative to conveyor 22 in a set position. Hironaka further discloses that a container positioner and a container locator, wherein a container positioner (A) configured to move containers crosswise relative to a direction of travel of a conveyor, and (B) includes a surface configured to engage containers to position containers in a set location and a linear actuator, e.g. prime mover, that moves a surface relative to a conveyor to position containers in a set location. Hironaka further discloses a container locator that includes a cross rail 30a which blocks container W2 and side rail 31b that extends along a side of conveyor 22, cross-rail 31b and side rail 30a forming a pocket at a set location configured to receive containers W2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a container position and a container locator, as taught by Hironaka, thereby allowing for containers to be suspended, e.g. stopped, at a particular location thereby allowing a preceding article can be processed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Ingram and Burgel and further in view of Riess (US 6,484,066) which discloses a container position sensor 44 which senses whether containers are in a proper position for starting and stopping image scanning, e.g. set position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a container position sensor, as taught by Riess, such that a container can be image scanned on all sides of a container.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Ingram and Burgel and further in view of Kane (US 4,419,384) which discloses a first container sensor that determines height, a second sensor 5 that determines width and a third sensor 4 that determines length. Kane teaches that diversity of articles moving along a conveyor "requires a continuous measurement of dimensions, not the greater or smaller indication of a photocell arrangement. Safety features, such as detecting unknown items." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to provide first, second and third sensors for detecting respectively height, width and length, as taught by Kane, to allow continuous dimensional determination of articles continuously moving on a conveyor and detection of unknown items on the articles.
Claim(s) 16 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Ingram and Burgel and further in view of Miller (US 6,713,741) which discloses a conveyor 30 disposed in an interior of a cabinet 11, 12 and extending out of a cabinet, a conveyor configured to transport articles toward a set location outside of a cabinet. Miller further discloses a door 17 openable and closeable via prime mover 40, and "a second sensor (not shown) located at a predetermined location within oven cavity 11 may be activated and send a signal to programmable logic center 55. Programmable logic center 55 may then send a signal to door 15, or exit door 17, or door actuator 40 (actuating signal), to activate door 15 to move door 15 from the closed position to the desired or necessary open position." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a door, prime mover and container sensor, as taught by Miller, which protect objects external to a cabinet form harm created internal to the cabinet.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Ingram and Burgel and further in view of Murray (US 3,333,666).
Murray discloses a tunnel 14, 15 (FIG. 3) covering a portion of conveyor 44 extending out of a cabinet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kuo to include a tunnel to cover a portion of a conveyor, as taught by Murray, such that processed food containers may reach downstream processes without contact from outside atmosphere prone to contaminants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 16 & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed Feb. 23, 2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 & 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652