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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindee (US 2014/0090956).
Regarding claim 1, Lindee discloses a system (Fig. 6-7) for boxing products (Fig. 6-7, item 150), comprising:
a boxing machine (Fig. 6, item 60, 110) having an entry section (Para. 0042);
a feeding conveyor (Fig. 6, item 120) configured to feed to the entry section of the boxing machine (Para. 0056-0061) a row of products (Fig. 6, item 150) aligned with each other in a transport direction (Para. 0056-0061);
a buffer (Fig. 6, item 230) for accumulating products (Para. 0064-0066);
a detection device (Fig. 6, item 210) configured to detect (Para. 0077-0079) on the feeding conveyor a presence and a position of empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079) that interrupt a continuity of the row of products (Para. 0077-0079); and
a manipulator (Fig. 1, robotic system 100, 200) (Fig. 6, item 200) configured to pick up products from the buffer (Para. 0056-0061) and to deposit the products picked up from the buffer on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0077-0079) in the empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079, robot 200 from robotic system 100, 200 picks up products and deposits the products in ) based on information about the position of the empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079) provided by the detection device (Para. 0077-0079), in order to restore the continuity of the row of products (Para. 0077-0079),
wherein the manipulator is further configured to pick up products (Para. 0062-0066) from the row of products (Para. 0062-0066) and to deposit the products picked up (Para. 0062-0066) from the row of products in a sampling station (Fig. 6, item 220) (Para. 0062-0066, robot 100 from robotic system 100, 200 picks up products and deposits the products in the sampling station 220), and to fill empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079) formed by the picking of the products (Para. 0077-0079) deposited in the sampling station with products picked up from the buffer (Para. 0077-0079).
Regarding claim 4, Lindee discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the detection device comprises an optical detection device (Fig. 6, item 210) including at least one camera (Fig. 6, item 210) configured to visually inspect the row of products moving on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0077-0079).
Regarding claim 5, Lindee discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the at least one camera is located on board the manipulator (Para. 0049, 0053-0055, camera 210 is located within the working zone of the manipulator such that the camera is on board and tracks the movements near the manipulator).
Regarding claim 7, Lindee discloses a method for boxing products, comprising:
providing a boxing machine (Fig. 6, item 60, 110) having an entry section (Para. 0042);
feeding to the entry section of the boxing machine (Para. 0056-0061) a row of products (Fig. 6, item 150) aligned with each other in a transport direction (Para. 0056-0061) by a feeding conveyor (Fig. 6, item 120) (Para. 0056-0061);
accumulating products in a buffer (Fig. 6, item 230) (Para. 0064-0066);
detecting on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0077-0079) a presence and a position of empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079) that interrupt a continuity of the row of products (Para. 0077-0079) by a detection device (Fig. 6, item 210); and
picking up products from the buffer by a manipulator (Fig. 1, robotic system 100, 200) (Fig. 6, item 200) (Para. 0056-0061) and depositing the products (Para. 0056-0061) picked up from the buffer on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0056-0061) in the empty spaces based on information (Para. 0056-0061) about the position of the empty spaces (Para. 0056-0061) provided by the detection device (Para. 0056-0061), in order to restore the continuity of the row of products (Para. 0056-0061); and
holding one or more products in a waiting position (Para. 0056-0061, waiting position occurs as robot 200 holds and moves products from one conveyor to the other) above the row of products advancing (Para. 0056-0061) along the feeding conveyor by the manipulator (Para. 0056-0061).
Regarding claim 8, Lindee discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising visually inspecting (Para. 0077-0079) the row of products moving on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0077-0079) to determine the presence and position of the empty spaces (Para. 0077-0079) in the row of products (Para. 0077-0079).
Regarding claim 11, Lindee discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising the manipulator: picking up products from the row of products (Para. 0062-0066), depositing the products picked up from the row of products in a sampling station (Fig. 6, item 220) (Para. 0062-0066, robot 100 from robotic system 100, 200 picks up products and deposits the products in the sampling station 220), and filling empty spaces formed by the picking of the products deposited in the sampling station (Para. 0077-0079) with products picked up from the buffer (Para. 0077-0079).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindee in view of Di Donna et al (US 2015/0274436), hereinafter Di Donna.
Regarding claim 3, Lindee discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a replenishment conveyor configured to feed products towards a working area of the manipulator, wherein manipulator is further configured to selectively pick up products from the buffer or from the replenishment conveyor to fill the empty spaces in the row of products.
However, Di Donna teaches a system comprising a replenishment conveyor (Di Donna, Fig. 1, item 11, 14) configured to feed products (Di Donna, Para. 0038-0041) towards a working area (Di Donna, Para. 0038-0041) of the manipulator (Di Donna, Fig. 1, item 12, 12’), wherein manipulator is further configured to selectively pick up products (Di Donna, Para. 0038-0041) from the buffer (Di Donna, Fig. 1, item 11’, 14’) or from the replenishment conveyor (Di Donna, Fig. 1, item 11, 14) to fill the empty spaces in the row of products (Di Donna, Para. 0038-0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Lindee and Di Donna to modify the system of Lindee to include the replenishment conveyor and buffer of Di Donna. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to product a continuous and ordered flow of products regardless of the shape or size of the products (Di Donna, Para. 0004).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindee in view of Donati (WO 2024/142126).
Regarding claim 6, Lindee teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the detection device comprises at least camera (Fig. 6, item 210) configured to detect the presence (Para. 0077-0079) and position of the empty spaces on the feeding conveyor (Para. 0077-0079).
Lindee does not expressly disclose the detection device comprises at least one load cell.
However, Donati teaches a detection device (Donati, Page 7, line 33-Page 8, line 7) comprising at least one load cell (Donati, Page 7, line 33-Page 8, line 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Lindee and Donati to modify the detection device of Lindee to include the load cell of Donati. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide quick and accurate locations of gaps in products. Additionally, utilizing a load cell as taught by Donati in place of the camera of Lindee would be a simple substitution of one known detection device for another to achieve the predictable result of monitoring the products on the conveyor.
Regarding claim 9, Lindee teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising detecting the presence (Para. 0077-0079) and position of the empty spaces in the row of products (Para. 0077-0079) using at least one camera (Fig. 6, item 210) (Para. 0077-0079).
Lindee does not expressly disclose the detection device comprises at least one load cell.
However, Donati teaches a detection device (Donati, Page 7, line 33-Page 8, line 7) comprising at least one load cell (Donati, Page 7, line 33-Page 8, line 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Lindee and Donati to modify the detection device of Lindee to include the load cell of Donati. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide quick and accurate locations of gaps in products. Additionally, utilizing a load cell as taught by Donati in place of the camera of Lindee would be a simple substitution of one known detection device for another to achieve the predictable result of monitoring the products on the conveyor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lindee does not disclose the manipulator picking up products from the row of products and depositing the products in a sampling station and filling the empty spaces, Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the entire robotic system of Lindee (including robots 100 and 200) are being interpreted as “a manipulator”. Under this interpretation, robot system 100, 200 performs the claimed operations (see for example para. 0062-0066 and 0077-0079 of Lindee). Examiner recommends further clarifying the claimed manipulator. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lindee does not disclose the manipulator holding products in a waiting position, Examiner disagrees. The robotic system 100, 200 of Lindee grasps and holds products as the products are moved to the conveyor from the parking line. The waiting position of Lindee occurs while the products are being moved by the robotic system 100, 200. Examiner recommends further clarifying the claimed waiting position. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights