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 .
It is noted that the instant application is a continuation-in-part of US Patent Application No. 18/422,238, filed January 25, 2024, still pending. Any information considered in the parent application has been considered in the instant application.
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of April 23, 2025 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on August 8, 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-12 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to set forth how the electronic controller is related to the rest of the claimed structure.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to set forth how the vibration system is related to the rest of the claimed structure.
Further, claim 1 fails to positively set forth a gate. The language “wherein, when a gate is in a first position, the group of packages are held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes, and, when the gate is moved from the first position to a second position, the group of packages are released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes onto the second conveyor system” renders the claim indefinite because the claim has not positively set forth a gate moving between a first position and a second position.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to set forth how the gate is related to the rest of the claimed structure.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the claim recites “one or more sensors configured to sense a characteristic of each group of the one or more groups of packages of the plurality of packages” and “sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors”. The claim language is not clear as to whether or not these recitations refer to different sensors. The claim language does not provide further language to differentiate the sensor system from the one or more sensors configured to sense a characteristic.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to set forth how the vibration system is related to the rest of the claimed structure.
Claim 7 fails to positively set forth a gate. The language “wherein, when a gate is in a first position, the group of packages are held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes, and, when the gate is moved from the first position to a second position, the group of packages are released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes onto the second conveyor system” renders the claim indefinite because the claim has not positively set forth a gate moving between a first position and a second position.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the claim fails to set forth how the gate is related to the rest of the claimed structure.
Claims 2-6, 8-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed (USPN 11027923) in view of Wagner et al. (USPN 11200390, having an effectively filed date of January 8, 2020), Abbas et al. (USPN 9889993) and Japanese Document (JPH08133203A, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘203).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Mohammed (USPN 11027923) teaches system for automatically sorting and dispensing packages, the system comprising: a first conveyor system (conveyor belt 105); a gate assembly including a plurality of chutes (chutes 120); one or more sensors configured to sense a characteristic of a group of packages of the plurality of packages (detectors 405A, 405B, 405C, also [Col. 4:19-21, “computer vision systems or barcode scanners for reading address information”]); an electronic controller (warehouse management system 150), wherein, when a gate (flap 125) is in a first position, the group of packages are held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes (Figure 3 shows packages held in the chute), and, when the gate is moved from the first position to a second position, the group of packages are released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes [Col. 2:61, “package 115 slides down the chute 120 until falling into the container 130”] [Col. 8:3-13, “chute 120A has a deactivated flap 125A where the flap is in the declined position to permit packages diverted from the belt 105 onto the chute 120A to slide off the flap 125A and into the container 130A”]. Mohammed fails to teach a second conveyor system configured to receive a plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly; a vibration system including a vibrator plate and a vibrator motor; and a sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors configured to communicate with the vibrator motor when a vibration of the system is above or below a threshold value; and the group of packages are released onto the second conveyor system. Wagner et al. (USPN 11200390) teaches (Figure 63-69) a first conveyor system (562, 564, 566), a chute (572) receiving an object from the first conveyor system and a second conveyor system (574) configured to receive a plurality of objects from the chute [Col. 29:50-Col. 31:60]. Abbas et al. (USPN 9889993) teaches a vibration system (26) for vibrating a chute (conveying element 16) to move objects along the chute [Col. 5:34-Col. 6:20] [Col. 7:4-8, “conveyor element 16 is vibrated to cause vibratory motion of the conveying surface 22…causing food slices on the liquid film to be slid downwardly”]. ‘203 teaches a chute (16) vibrated by a vibration system (14, 24) for vibrating the chute, the vibration system having a vibrator plate (fixing portion 24) and a vibrator motor (vibrating unit 14). ‘203 further teaches a sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors (vibration sensor 25) configured to communicate with the vibrator motor when a vibration of the system is above or below a threshold value [“the control device 11 includes an A / D converter connected to the vibration sensor 25 and the optical sensor 26, and an arithmetic processing unit for outputting an output signal to the vibration unit 14 based on the data stored in the memory circuit. It comprises a D / A converter that converts the output of the processing device into an analog signal and drives a drive circuit, so that the amount of powdered medicine to be supplied in a fixed amount based on the data stored in the memory circuit becomes constant. Controls the vibration frequency of the vibration unit”; “the vibration frequency to the vibration unit 14 is corrected to improve the accuracy of the fixed amount supply”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mohammed to include a second conveyor system configured to receive a plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly as taught by Wagner et al. in order to direct packages to a desired location. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mohammed to include a vibration system including a vibrator plate and a vibrator motor; and a sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors configured to communicate with the vibrator motor when a vibration of the system is above or below a threshold value as taught by Abbas et al. and ‘203 in order to assist the movement of packages along the chute and provide a set amount of vibration.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Mohammed teaches a destination (“address information”).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the claim language is directed to the article(s) handled by the system, and does not limit the structure of the system. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the vibration system is directly connected to the gate assembly. Abbas et al. teaches the vibration system is directly connected to the chute [Col. 5:62, “vibratory actuator 26 is coupled to the vibratory conveyor element 16”]. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to directly connect the vibration system to the gate assembly as engineering expedient to vibrate the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the vibration system is directly connected to an underside of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly. Abbas et al. teaches the vibration system is directly connected to an underside of the chute (as seen in Figure 1, the actuator 26 is connected to the underside of element 16). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to directly connect the vibration system to the underside of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly as engineering expedient to vibrate the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach he one or more sensor system sensors are configured to detect vibrations output by the vibration system. ‘203 teaches a sensor (25) that detects vibrations output by the vibration system [“the vibration at that time is detected by the vibration sensor 25”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to detect vibrations output by the vibration system in order to provide feedback control of the vibration system.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of Abbas et al. and ‘203.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Mohammed teaches a system for automatically sorting, tracking, and dispensing packages, the system comprising: a gate assembly including a plurality of chutes (chutes 120); one or more conveyor systems (conveyor belt 105) configured to dispense a plurality of packages to the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly or to receive one or more groups of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly; one or more sensors configured to sense a characteristic of each group of the one or more groups of packages of the plurality of packages (detectors 405A, 405B, 405C, also [Col. 4:19-21, “computer vision systems or barcode scanners for reading address information”]); an electronic controller (warehouse management system 150) configured to receive signals from the one or more sensors; and a sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors (detector 405), wherein, when a gate is in a first position, the one or more groups of packages are held within a respective chute of the plurality of chutes (Figure 3 shows packages held in the chute), and, when the gate is moved from the first position to a second position, the one or more groups of packages are released from the respective chute of the plurality of chutes [Col. 2:61, “package 115 slides down the chute 120 until falling into the container 130”] [Col. 8:3-13, “chute 120A has a deactivated flap 125A where the flap is in the declined position to permit packages diverted from the belt 105 onto the chute 120A to slide off the flap 125A and into the container 130A”]. Mohammed fails to teach a vibration system including a vibrator plate and a vibrator motor. Abbas et al. (USPN 9889993) teaches a vibration system (26) for vibrating a chute (conveying element 16) to move objects along the chute [Col. 5:34-Col. 6:20] [Col. 7:4-8, “conveyor element 16 is vibrated to cause vibratory motion of the conveying surface 22…causing food slices on the liquid film to be slid downwardly”]. ‘203 teaches a chute (16) vibrated by a vibration system (14, 24) for vibrating the chute, the vibration system having a vibrator plate (fixing portion 24) and a vibrator motor (vibrating unit 14). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mohammed to include a vibration system including a vibrator plate and a vibrator motor as taught by Abbas et al. and ‘203 in order to assist the movement of packages along the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Mohammed teaches a destination (“address information”).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Regarding Claim(s) 3, the claim language is directed to the article(s) handled by the system, and does not limit the structure of the system. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the vibration system is directly connected to an underside of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly. Abbas et al. teaches the vibration system is directly connected to an underside of the chute (as seen in Figure 1, the actuator 26 is connected to the underside of element 16). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to directly connect the vibration system to the underside of the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly as engineering expedient to vibrate the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the vibrator plate is I-shaped. ‘203 teaches a vibrator plate (as described above). However, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed shape, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an I-shaped vibrator plate as engineering expedient. It may be desirable to select a shape in order to fit the plate in a desired location.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the one or more sensor system sensors detect a threshold vibration value of the gate assembly. ‘203 further teaches a sensor system including one or more sensor system sensors (vibration sensor 25) that detects a threshold vibration value [“the control device 11 includes an A / D converter connected to the vibration sensor 25 and the optical sensor 26, and an arithmetic processing unit for outputting an output signal to the vibration unit 14 based on the data stored in the memory circuit. It comprises a D / A converter that converts the output of the processing device into an analog signal and drives a drive circuit, so that the amount of powdered medicine to be supplied in a fixed amount based on the data stored in the memory circuit becomes constant. Controls the vibration frequency of the vibration unit”; “the vibration frequency to the vibration unit 14 is corrected to improve the accuracy of the fixed amount supply”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the one or more sensor system sensors to detect a threshold vibration value of the gate assembly in order to achieve a desired level of vibration.
Claim(s) 13-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of Abbas et al.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Mohammed teaches a method for sorting, tracking, and dispensing packages, the method comprising: moving one or more gates (flaps 125) of a gate assembly to a first position; dispensing a plurality of packages into the at least one chute (120) of the gate assembly such that a group of packages of the plurality of packages are held within a respective chute of the at least one chute by the respective gate in the first position [abstract, “flap serves as a stop to prevent packages”] (Figure 3 shows packages held in the chute); and moving the one or more gates of the gate assembly to a second position based on signals from one or more sensors (detectors 405A, 405B, 405C, also [Col. 4:19-21, “computer vision systems or barcode scanners for reading address information”]) such that the group of packages is released from the respective chute of the at least one chute [Col. 8:3-13, “chute 120A has a deactivated flap 125A where the flap is in the declined position to permit packages diverted from the belt 105 onto the chute 120A to slide off the flap 125A and into the container 130A”]. Mohammed fails to teach vibrating at least one chute of the gate assembly. Abbas et al. teaches vibrating a chute (16) to move objects along the chute [Col. 5:34-Col. 6:20] [Col. 7:4-8, “conveyor element 16 is vibrated to cause vibratory motion of the conveying surface 22…causing food slices on the liquid film to be slid downwardly”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vibrate the chute to assist in moving packages on the chute.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Mohammed teaches tracking the group of packages of the plurality of packages, via the one or more sensors, along one or more conveyor systems (conveyor belt 105) that are configured to dispense the plurality of packages to the at least one chute of the gate assembly or to receive the plurality of packages that are selectively dispensed from the plurality of chutes of the gate assembly (package is tracked by controller 165 and package tracker 170, Col. 4:9-42). See also [Col. 4:43-Col. 6:20], which describes the control method used.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Mohammed teaches controlling a bagging system (containers 130), based on signals received from the one or more sensors, that is configured to receive the plurality of packages from the gate assembly or the one or more conveyor systems. See also [Col. 4:43-Col. 6:20], which describes the control method used.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the one or more sensors are configured to sense a characteristic of the group of packages of the plurality of packages, and wherein the characteristic is one or more of: a priority; a destination; a class; a volume; or a weight. At Col. 4:19, Mohammed discloses reading a destination (“address information”) by a computer vision system.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the group of packages includes about ten packages. Mohammed shows three packages in the chute in Figure 3. However, selecting a desired number of packages would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient based on the desired number of packages.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a plurality of the at least one chute is vibrating at the same time. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vibrate multiple chutes at the same time to move packages along each of the chutes simultaneously.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a vibration system is directly connected to the at least one chute. Abbas et al. teaches the vibration system is directly connected to the chute [Col. 5:62, “vibratory actuator 26 is coupled to the vibratory conveyor element 16”]. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to directly connect the vibration system to the gate assembly as engineering expedient to vibrate the chute.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed in view of Abbas et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of ‘203.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Mohammed teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach sensing a vibration value of the gate assembly via one or more sensor system sensors to control the vibration value between an upper threshold value and lower threshold value. ‘203 teaches a chute (16) vibrated by a vibration system (14, 24) for vibrating the chute, the vibration system having a vibrator plate (fixing portion 24) and a vibrator motor (vibrating unit 14). ‘203 further teaches sensing a vibration value of the gate assembly via one or more sensor system sensors (vibration sensor 25) to control the vibration value between an upper threshold value and lower threshold value [“the control device 11 includes an A / D converter connected to the vibration sensor 25 and the optical sensor 26, and an arithmetic processing unit for outputting an output signal to the vibration unit 14 based on the data stored in the memory circuit. It comprises a D / A converter that converts the output of the processing device into an analog signal and drives a drive circuit, so that the amount of powdered medicine to be supplied in a fixed amount based on the data stored in the memory circuit becomes constant. Controls the vibration frequency of the vibration unit”; “the vibration frequency to the vibration unit 14 is corrected to improve the accuracy of the fixed amount supply”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to sensing a vibration value of the gate assembly via one or more sensor system sensors to control the vibration value between an upper threshold value and lower threshold value in order to provide a desired amount of vibration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP3572355A1 teaches a conveyor system (42) receiving articles from chute (34) having a gate (36). USPN 12577050 teaches chutes having gates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 10/3/2026
Prosecution Insights