SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC SORTATION OF OBJECTS

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 . DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 24, 25, 31, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-19, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,353. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: 18/377,417 (Claim 24) USP 12,337,353 (Claim 16) An object processing system comprising: a carriage including a load bed on which an object is received, and a carrier that supports the load bed An object processing system comprising: a programmable motion device for moving a first object of a plurality of objects and for moving the first object to a carriage with a load bed for receiving the first object thereon from the programmable motion device at a loading location a track system along which the carrier of the carriage is adapted to reciprocally move to and from locations between first and second opposite ends of the track system, the carriage being movably mounted at a carriage elevation on the track system for movement of the carriage at the carriage elevation, and the track system including a loading location at which the object is loaded onto the load bed of the carriage said carriage being movably mounted at a carriage elevation on a track system for movement of the carriage at the carriage elevation a plurality of destination locations, each destination location including a destination container with an open top, the plurality of destination locations being provided in an array of destination locations arranged under the track system at a destination location elevation that is lower than the carriage elevation a plurality of destination locations, each destination location including a destination container with an open top, said plurality of destination locations being provided in an array of destination locations arranged underneath the track system at a destination location elevation that is lower than the carriage elevation an actuation system for causing the carriage to discharge the selected object from the load bed and drop the object into a selected destination container of a selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations, wherein the carriage is driven in a first route to move along the track system from the loading location towards the selected destination location and is driven in a second route that is different than the first route to move along the track system towards the loading location from the selected destination location to receive a next selected object at the loading location an actuation system for causing the carriage to tip such that the selected an actuation system for causing the carriage to discharge the selected object from the load bed and drop the selected object into a selected destination container of a selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations, wherein the carriage is driven in a first route to move along the track system from the loading location towards the selected destination location and is driven in a second route that is different than the first route to move along the track system towards the loading location from the selected destination location to receive a next selected object from the programmable motion device at the loading location Claim 25 Claim 17 Claim 31 Claim 21 Claim 32 Claim 22 Claims 28, 29, 33, 34, 39-42, 47, and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,353 in view of Clark et al (USP 8,718,814). Regarding claim 28, ‘353 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 29, ‘353 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 33, ‘353 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object and disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) and the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 41, ‘353 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object and disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) and the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Claim 34 Claim 17 in view of Clark Claim 39 Claim 21 in view of Clark Claim 40 Claim 22 in view Clark Claim 42 Claim 17 in view of Clark Claim 47 Claim 21 in view of Clark Claim 48 Claim 22 in view of Clark Claim 25-27 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,353 in view of Hartlepp (USP 4,846,335). Regarding claims 25, ‘902 does not disclose receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area. Hartlepp teaches receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area on an input conveyor (col. 2, lines 49-58) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Regarding claim 30, ‘353 does not disclose the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier. Hartlepp teaches the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier (col. 2, lines 59-64) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Claim 26 Claim 18 in view of Hartlepp Claim 27 Claim 19 in view of Hartlepp Claims 34-37 and 42-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,353 in view of Clark in view of Hartlepp. Regarding claims 34, ‘353 in view of Clark does not disclose receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area. Hartlepp teaches receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area on an input conveyor (col. 2, lines 49-58) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Regarding claim 37, ‘353 in view of Clark does not disclose the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier. Hartlepp teaches the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier (col. 2, lines 59-64) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Regarding claims 42, ‘353 in view of Clark does not disclose receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area. Hartlepp teaches receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area on an input conveyor (col. 2, lines 49-58) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘353, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Claim 35 Claim 18 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 36 Claim 19 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 43 Claim 18 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 44 Claim 19 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 45 Claim 16 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claims 24, 31, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: 18/377,417 (Claim 24) USP 11,839,902 (Claim 9) An object processing system comprising: a carriage including a load bed on which an object is received, and a carrier that supports the load bed An object processing system comprising: a programmable motion device with a vacuum end-effector for grasping at an input area a selected object among a plurality of objects, and for moving the selected object to a processing area; a carriage with a load bed for receiving the selected object thereon from the vacuum end-effector of the programmable motion device a track system along which the carrier of the carriage is adapted to reciprocally move to and from locations between first and second opposite ends of the track system, the carriage being movably mounted at a carriage elevation on the track system for movement of the carriage at the carriage elevation, and the track system including a loading location at which the object is loaded onto the load bed of the carriage said carriage being movably mounted at a carriage elevation on a track system for movement of the carriage at the carriage elevation within the processing area, wherein the carriage is driven in a first direction to move along the track system to deliver the selected object and is driven in a second direction that is different than the first direction to move along the track system to receive a next selected object from the programmable motion device a plurality of destination locations, each destination location including a destination container with an open top, the plurality of destination locations being provided in an array of destination locations arranged under the track system at a destination location elevation that is lower than the carriage elevation a plurality of destination locations provided below the track system at a destination location elevation that is lower than the carriage elevation an actuation system for causing the carriage to discharge the selected object from the load bed and drop the object into a selected destination container of a selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations, wherein the carriage is driven in a first route to move along the track system from the loading location towards the selected destination location and is driven in a second route that is different than the first route to move along the track system towards the loading location from the selected destination location to receive a next selected object at the loading location an actuation system for causing the carriage to tip such that the selected object is discharged from the load bed and dropped into a selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations below the track system, wherein the selected destination location is defined between chute walls and the carriage is tipped to drop the object into the selected destination location via the chute walls Claim 31 Claim 13 Claim 32 Claim 14 Claims 28-29, 33, 38-41, and 46-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,902 in view of Clark et al (USP 8,718,814). Regarding claim 28, ‘902 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 29, ‘902 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 33, ‘902 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object and disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) and the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Regarding claim 41, ‘902 does not disclose the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object and disclose the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data. Clark teaches the object processing system further includes a perception system for providing perception data regarding an object (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; where sensors sense bot information through optical tactile and other types of sensors) and the object processing system further includes a computer processing system for assigning the selected destination location of the plurality of destination locations for the object based on the perception data (col. 12, lines 44+ and col. 13, lines 1-8; element 900 and where the computer is communication with each of the parts of the system) for the purpose directing objects to the desired bins. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Clark, for the purpose of directing objects to the desired bins. Claim 38 Claim 13 in view of Clark Claim 39 Claim 9 in view of Clark Claim 40 Claim 14 in view Clark Claim 46 Claim 9 in view of Clark Claim 47 Claim 13 in view of Clark Claim 48 Claim 14 in view of Clark Claims 25-27 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,902 in view of Hartlepp (USP 4,846,335). Regarding claim 25, ‘902 does not disclose receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area. Hartlepp teaches receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area on an input conveyor (col. 2, lines 49-58) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Regarding claim 30, ‘902 does not disclose the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier. Hartlepp teaches the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier (col. 2, lines 59-64) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Claim 26 Claim 10 in view of Hartlepp Claim 27 Claim 11 in view of Hartlepp Claims 34-37 and 42-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,839,902 in view of Clark and Hartlepp. Regarding claim 34, ‘902 does not disclose receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area. Hartlepp teaches receiving a plurality of objects to be processed at an input area on an input conveyor (col. 2, lines 49-58) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Regarding claim 37, ‘902 does not disclose the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier. Hartlepp teaches the actuation system is actuatable to drop the selected object from the load bed into the selected destination container in a direction that is transverse to a direction of movement of the carrier (col. 2, lines 59-64) for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify ‘902, as taught by Hartlepp, for the purpose of receiving items at a loading station. Claim 35 Claim 10 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 36 Claim 11 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 42 Claim 9 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 43 Claim 10 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 44 Claim 11 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Claim 45 Claim 9 in view of Clark and Hartlepp Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30. 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 on 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 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. /K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653 /MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653