Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 20, 2026
Application No. 19/237,996

ARTICLE SORTING SYSTEM AND ARTICLE SORTING METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Priority
Dec 14, 2022 — JP 2022-199679 +1 more
Examiner
DEUBLE, MARK A
Art Unit
3651
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
1024 granted / 1162 resolved
+36.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
1176
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1162 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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 1-6 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 states that the sorting system includes “ a conveying apparatus configured to convey a plurality of articles through the input portion” and then later states that the conveying apparatus includes “an automated guided vehicle portion” configured to move between the input portion and the plurality of sorting destinations of the shelf portion; an “article transfer portion” that is provided on the automated guided vehicle portion, extends upward from the automated guided vehicle portion, and is configured to move according to a movement of the automated guided vehicle portion and operate so as to transfer the articles to the plurality of sorting destinations; and a “moving mechanism” configured to move according to a movement of the automated guided vehicle portion and move the article transfer portion in a vertical direction with respect to the automated guided vehicle portion to a height that allows the articles to be transferred to the sorting destinations of the shelf portion. However, it appears from the specification that conveying apparatus that is configured to convey a plurality of articles through the input potion is formed by a sorter 5, and not by the automated guided vehicle portion 701, the article transfer portion 702 and the moving mechanism 703 which all operate downstream of the input portion as described in the specification and in the “configured to” clauses of the claims. This discrepancy between the specification and the claims renders the scope of the claims impossible to ascertain. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder, such as “portion” or “mechanism”, that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “automated guided vehicle portion” configured to move between the input portion and the plurality of sorting destinations of the shelf portion, the “article transfer portion” configured to move according to a movement of the automated guided vehicle portion and operate so as to transfer the articles to the plurality of sorting destinations, and the “moving mechanism” configured to move according to a movement of the automated guided vehicle portion and move the article transfer portion in a vertical direction with respect to the automated guided vehicle portion to a height that allows the articles to be transferred to the sorting destinations of the shelf portion in claims 1-9, and the “first transfer portion” configured to place at least one of the articles on each of the step portions, the “mechanism controlled by the processor” of the first transfer portion configured to transfer, from the first transfer portion to the second transfer portion, the articles transferred to the step portion of the first transfer portion, and the “mechanism controlled by the processor” of the second transfer portion configured to move away from the first transfer portion and transfer the articles one by one to the sorting destinations selected from the plurality of sorting destinations of claims 2-5. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9 are allowed. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule. 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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. /MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12729066
MODULAR CONVEYOR BELT WITH DEDICATED ACCESS MODULE
1y 7m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12715700
CONVEYOR BELT AND BELT CONVEYING APPARATUS
1y 10m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12692083
ZONE-ACTUATED INLINE DUAL-STACKED ROLLER BELT CONVEYOR
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692084
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR STABILIZING CARRIER BASKET TRAVELING ON A CONVEYOR SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN BASKET ALIGNMENT AT LOADING/UNLOADING STATIONS
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12696717
INSPECTION SYSTEM
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+8.2%)
1y 9m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1162 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month