DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 19 May 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 May 2026 and 19 May 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Office Action on 19 November 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 1, previously presented as claim 6, is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0260745 to Bendahan (hereinafter “Bendahan”).
Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
-Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 19-20
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 6,199,466 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0260745 to Bendahan (hereinafter “Bendahan”).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a system for separating a cardboard box from a skid or pallet, said system (see Fig. 13; Col. 11, lines 24-34 “the apparatus 510 could preferably comprise[sic] the apparatus 410 illustrated in FIGS. 71-12”) comprising: a support surface (at 425; see Fig. 7) adapted to receive the skid or pallet (415) on which the cardboard box is secured (413; containers may be cardboard boxes, see Col. 11, lines 56-61); a ram (440) adjacent to said support surface (see Fig. 7), said ram adapted to separate the cardboard box from the skid or pallet (see Col. 8, lines 28-35 and Col. 9, lines 29-34) that is positioned on said support surface (425); a processing system (512, see Fig. 13 and Col. 11, lines 35-47) selected from the group consisting of an auger system, a ram system, a compactor system (material is compressed/compacted within the system 512; see Col. 11, lines 41-47), a conveyor system, a shredder system, and a bailing system adapted to receive and process a cardboard box (413) that has been separated from the skid or pallet by said ram (440).
Crawford does not explicitly disclose that the system includes a scanning system adapted to sense metal materials or batteries in or on the cardboard box or the skid or pallet.
However, it is known in the art of processing systems to use scanning technology to determine what is on the interior of an object.
For example, Bendahan teaches an imaging system (see title) which may scan objects such as cargo for security reasons (see paragraph [0006]), which includes an x-ray imaging system (100) and a conveyor (106). The conveyor may convey an object (108; se paragraph [0018]) such that an x-ray source (112) emits energy (see paragraph [0022]) to detect different parts of an object as it moves through the system (100), capturing multiple images of the object (see paragraph [0026]) to produce images of the interior of the object as it moves through the conveyor (106; see paragraph [0029]), with the images displayed for review by an operator (see paragraph [0029]). The scanning system advantageously produces improved images of high density objects (see paragraph [0017]). The imaging assembly (104) produces a signal which represents the object being imaged (see paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Crawford to include a conventional scanning assembly, such as the x-ray scanning system taught by Bendaham. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting apparatus would predictably allow the separating system to scan containers for dangerous materials, as suggested by Bendaham (see paragraph [0006]), providing scanned images which can be reviewed by an operator. While the combination does not explicitly indicate that the scanning detects metal, one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the detection of high density objects would include metallic components and batteries.
Thus, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches that said support surface (425) is configured to keep a skid, pallet, or the like (415) in positioned on said support surface when said ram separates a cardboard box (see Col. 10, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Crawford teaches that said support surface (425) has at least one raised edge (458; see Fig. 7) to keep a skid, pallet, or the like in position on said support surface (425) when said ram separates a cardboard box (Col. 10, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches that said ram (440) is hydraulic (apparatus may be powered by conventional hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders; see Col. 8, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches further comprising a cover (container 413 passes through side of separating device 410 through side 420 at 416; see Fig. 8) through which the cardboard box (413) is adapted to pass before being received by said processing system (512).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bendaham teaches that said scanning system is adapted to facilitate stoppages of said system to allow for removal of metal materials or batteries sensed by said scanning system (see paragraph [0009]; control system may control conveyor to transport object through system, rotate object to a desired angle, and see paragraph [0028], control speed of objects transported through conveyor understood to facilitate stopping).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bendaham teaches that said scanning system (104) is an x-ray system (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches that the system further comprises a cover (424) through which the cardboard box (411) is adapted to pass before being received by said processing system (104 of Bendaham). The scanning system of the combination, as taught by Bendaham, is understood to be secured to the apparatus body (equivalent of gantry 102 body of Bendaham), such that the scanning system would be understood to be secured to the cover.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches that said processing system (512) is a ram system (see Col. 11, lines 40-46; ram pushes the containers into system, fairly reading on the claimed ram system).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford teaches that said processing system (512) is a compactor system (see Col. 11, lines 43-46; containers are compacted in system 512).
Claims 10 and 15-17
Claims 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crawford and Bendaham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent 6,332,750 to Donner et al. (hereinafter “Donner”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham as applied to claim 1 above, and further Crawford teaches that the ram (440) returns to its home position (initial position; see Col. 5, line 58-57) after separating the cardboard box (212) from the skid or pallet (210), but Crawford teaches that the return is the result of the powering cylinder, not detected by a sensor.
Donner teaches an apparatus for depalletizing assemblies of cardboard and pallets (see Abstract). The device includes optical or other sensors for detecting proper operation of the system (see Col. 2, lines 38-43). The apparatus may be provided with optical sensors for positioning components of the assembly (see Col. 4, lines 57-64 and Col. 7, lines 59-65) and position sensors (11) for monitoring the position of an apparatus support during operation (Col. 9, lines 54-58). When the apparatus is not operating as desired, defect signals are generated to indicated deviation from desired function (see Col. 9, lines 41-46), allowing a user to correct the device (see Col. 3, lines 58-54).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by the combination of Crawford and Bendaham to include position sensors which detect whether the ram or other parts of the apparatus have returned to the initial position. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). Because Crawford already contemplates returning the ram to its initial position, it would have been obvious to use a conventional sensor verification assembly to confirm the positions of the respective components of the depalletizing device taught by the combination, without modification of the principles of operation of Crawford, while advantageously allowing users to correct improper operation of the apparatus.
Thus, the combination of Crawford, Bendaham, and Donner teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Crawford, Bendaham, and Donner teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Crawford teaches that said support surface is associated with an autostacker (514); wherein said autostacker is adapted to collect the ski or pallet when said ram home sensor senses that said ram is back in said home position after separating the cardboard box from the ski or pallet (see Col. 11, lines 48-55); and wherein said autostacker is adapted to stack multiple skids or pallets that have been collected (device stacks pallets 415, understood to be plural; see Col. 11, lines 49-55).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Crawford, Bendaham, and Donner teaches the limitations of claim 10, and further Crawford teaches that said autostacker (514) is partially automatic. Crawford is silent regarding the functioning of the autostacker but indicates that the autostacker is commercially available (Col. 11, lines 52-55). The instant Specification teaches that automated and manual stackers are commercially available (see instant Specification at paragraph [0043]), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a partially automatic stacker is ovious.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Crawford, Bendaham, and Donner teaches the limitations of claim 10. Crawford is silent regarding the functioning of the autostacker but indicates that the autostacker is commercially available (Col. 11, lines 52-55). The instant Specification teaches that automated and manual stackers are commercially available (see instant Specification at paragraph [0043]), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a fully automatic stacker is obvious.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crawford and Bendaham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0061997 to Behrens et al. (hereinafter “Behrens”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, however Crawford Figures 7-13 does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the processing system (512) is an auger system. However, Crawford teaches with respect to the embodiment of Figures 6A-6C that its pallet processing device may be provided with means for stacking and transporting away containers, which may include a conveyor (see Col. 7, lines 9-13). Further, Crawford asserts “it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that many other embodiments of the present invention are possible” and “many other orientations of the machine and means for moving and forcing the platens are possible” at Col. 7, lines 8-17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Crawford as taught by Figures. 7-13 to include a conventional means for transporting away containers, such as with a conveyor as taught by Crawford with respect to Figures 6A-6C. (See MPEP 2143(A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that providing a conveyor to move the container from the separating apparatus to the processing apparatus would allow the apparatus of Figures 7-13 to function in a predictable manner without modification of the principles of operation thereof. Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Crawford Figures 7-13 and Crawford Figures 6A-6C does not fairly teach that the conveyor of the processing system is an auger system, however it is known in the art of palletized containers to move them using augers.
For example, Behrens teaches using augers (122, see paragraph [0036] and 126; see paragraph [0035]). Behrens teaches a palletized box (30) formed of a pallet (32) with a cardboard box (22’) attached thereto (paragraph [0031]). Behrens further teaches that materials may be transported using conveyors (126) which may include augers (see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by Crawford to use another and conventional conveyor apparatus, such a conveyor including an auger, as is known in the art and taught by Behrens. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the conveyors taught by Crawford can have a variety of different configurations without departing from the teachings of Crawford, and further would reasonably understand that an auger could move components into the processing system.
Thus, the combination of Crawford, Bendaham and Behrens teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Crawford and Bendaham as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 1, however Crawford Figures 7-13 does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the processing system (512) is a conveyor system.
However, Crawford teaches with respect to the embodiment of Figures 6A-6C that its pallet processing device may be provided with means for stacking and transporting away containers, which may include a conveyor (see Col. 7, lines 9-13). Further, Crawford asserts “it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that many other embodiments of the present invention are possible” and “many other orientations of the machine and means for moving and forcing the platens are possible” at Col. 7, lines 8-17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Crawford as taught by Figures. 7-13 to include a conventional means for transporting away containers, such as with a conveyor as taught by Crawford with respect to Figures 6A-6C. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that providing a conveyor to move the container from the separating apparatus to the processing apparatus would allow the apparatus of Figures 7-13 to function in a predictable manner without modification of the principles of operation thereof. Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, Crawford and Bendaham teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose that “said support surface is associated with a plate; wherein said plate is adapted to rotate downward to eject the skid or pallet when said ram home sensor senses that said ram is back in said home position after separating the cardboard box from the skid or pallet,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Bendaham teaches that its device includes a position sensor for confirming proper operation of the apparatus, but neither Crawford nor Bendham teaches that the separating components of the device operate after separating the cardboard box from a pallet when the ram is in the initial position. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the claimed limitations are understood to require that the ram have been operated and returned to the initial position before the claimed component can move.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose that “said support surface is associated with a conveyor system; wherein said conveyor system is adapted to convey the skid or pallet such that the skid or pallet is ejected when said ram home sensor senses that said ram is back in said home position after separating the cardboard box from the skid or pallet,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Bendaham teaches that its device includes a position sensor for confirming proper operation of the apparatus, but neither Crawford nor Bendham teaches that the separating components of the device operate after separating the cardboard box from a pallet when the ram is in the initial position. To the best of the examiner’s understanding, the claimed limitations are understood to require that the ram have been operated and returned to the initial position before the claimed conveyor can move.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that several components interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) or sixth paragraph are not properly interpreted under such. Applicant argues that “each of those terms [] have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name of the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function.”
Respectfully, the examiner disagrees. Applicant points only to case law in the abstract and does not provide any evidence that the claimed terms are conventional or well-known. The examiner notes that the term “roller system” is perhaps conventional but, absent Applicant’s disclosure, the terms are so generic as to provide no real clarity. A roller bearing, a gas turbine engine, and a conveyor could all include a roller system, but the structure and configuration of each “roller system” of the respective apparatuses would be so different as to require further clarity. If the instant structures are not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) or sixth paragraph, the terms are not understood with sufficient clarity by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to claims 1-21 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 19 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, 19, and 20 under 35 USC 102 and claims 18 and 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bendaham.
The subject matter previously indicated allowable is no longer considered allowable.
New rejections are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights