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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 10/9/2025. Claims 1-22 are currently pending. Claim 22 has been amended in a preliminary amendment. The cancelation of claims 23-29 is the preliminary amendment is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 3572005) in view of Craig (US 2022/0267039 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a system comprising: a container conveyor (the assembly of T-1 and T-2 – Fig. 2) configured to move containers (12 – Fig. 2) to a container filling location (the location below and slightly beyond 17 – Fig. 2); an item conveyor (F – Fig. 2) configured to move items (10 – Fig. 2) to the container filling location (see Fig. 2 where 10 falls in 12 at the location below and slightly beyond 17), the item conveyor having a downstream end (at 17 – Fig. 2) disposed above the conveyor at the container filling location (see Fig. 2); one or more sensors (S-1 through S-6 – Fig. 2) configured to detect the items moving on the item conveyor (col. 4, lines 13-26); and one or more circuits (the assembly of 50a-52 and 63-67 – Fig. 4) in communication with the container conveyor and the one or more sensors (see Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 42-46), the one or more circuits configured to at least: receive signals from the one or more sensors (see Fig. 4); and control a speed of the container conveyor based on the signals received from the one or more sensors (col. 4, lines 42-46).
However, Allen does not disclose that the circuits are in the form of process
Craig discloses a similar invention comprising a container conveyor (109 – Fig. 18), an item conveyor (106 – Fig. 18), sensor (104 – Fig. 18), and one or more processors (105 – Fig. 18) in communication with the container conveyor and the one or more sensors (paras. 0140 and para. 0142), the one or more processors configured with computer-executable instructions to at least: receive signals from the one or more processors and control a speed of the container conveyor based on the signals from the one or more sensors (para. 0142). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Craig, would have recognized that the one or more processors of Craig is analogous to the one or more circuits of Allen since they both perform the same function of interacting with a sensor and a conveyor. Furthermore, the one or more processors of Craig provides the benefit of allowing the machine’s logic to be more quickly and easily updated when necessary, thereby improving the ease of use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the circuitry of Allen with a processor as suggested by Craig in order to improve ease of use.
Allen, as modified by Craig, further teaches (citations are to Allen unless otherwise noted):
Claim 2, the container conveyor (the assembly of T-1 and T-2 – Fig. 2) comprises a container supply conveyor (T-2 – Fig. 2) and a container fill conveyor (T-1 – Fig. 2).
Claim 3, the container fill conveyor (T-1 – Fig. 2) receives the containers from the container supply conveyor (T-2 – Fig. 2) and moves the containers to the container filling location (see Fig. 2).
Claim 4, the container fill conveyor (T-1 – Fig. 2) comprises one or more drive belts (22 – Fig. 2) configured to grip the containers received from the container supply conveyor (T-2 – Fig. 2; a conveyor belt grips an item through friction).
Claim 5, the container supply conveyor (T-2 – Fig. 2) carries containers from an upstream location to the container fill conveyor (T-1 – Fig. 2; see Fig. 2, T-2 is upstream of T-1).
Claim 6, the container supply conveyor (T-2 – Fig. 2) continuously carries containers to the container fill conveyor (T-1 – Fig. 2) such that the containers accumulate at a location proximate the container fill conveyor (col. 2, lines 35-39).
Claim 7, the speed controlled by the one or more processors is a speed of the container fill conveyor (col. 4, lines 13-46; T-1 is a member of T, hence the speed of T-1 is controlled by the one or more processors).
Claim 18, the item conveyor (F – Fig. 2) is disposed such that the items fall of the downstream end (at 17 – Fig. 2) of the item conveyor upon arriving at the container filling location (see Fig. 2).
Claim 19, a guide (the unlabeled sidewalls spanning the length of either F or T-1 – Fig. 2; note that the walls are cutaway at the container filling location for visibility, however, it is clear that the walls are also at the container filling location, for example, Fig. 2 shows the back wall of T-1) at the container filling location, the guide comprising at least one wall (as noted above the guide is interpreted to be the unlabeled sidewalls spanning the length of either F or T-1 – Fig. 2) positioned to guide the items falling from the downstream end of the item conveyor into the containers on the container conveyor (the walls prevent any items from falling laterally from the container, hence they are interpreted to guide the items).
Claim 20, the one or more processors (105 – Fig. 18, Craig) are configured to control the speed of the container conveyor (the assembly of T-1 and T-2 – Fig. 2) such that each of the containers are filled with a predetermined volume of items (col. 1, lines 62-66).
Claim 21, the one or more sensors (104 – Fig. 18, Craig) comprise at least one optical sensor, at least one two dimensional camera, or at least one three dimensional camera (para. 0140, Craig).
Claim 22, the items (10 – Fig. 2) are strawberries (note that the items are not member of the claimed invention, in this case, since the invention of Allen may be used with generally symmetrical fruits, col. 1, lines 23-26, the invention is fully capable of being used with strawberries).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 3572005) in view of Craig (US 2022/0267039) and Resnick (US 5823319).
Regarding claim 8, Allen, as modified by Craig, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 7.
However, since the container supply conveyor and the container fill conveyor are mechanically driven by the same motor, Allen does not teach the container supply conveyor is maintained at a constant speed.
Resnick teaches a similar container conveyor comprising a container fill conveyor (30 – Fig. 1a) and a container supply container (20 – Fig. 1a not including the variable speed drop out zone, col. 1, lines 47-52), wherein a processor (52 – Fig. 2) is configured to maintain a speed of the container supply conveyor constant while adjusting the speed of the container fill conveyor (col. 1, lines 47-52). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Resnick, would have recognized that the container conveyor of Resnick provides the benefit of greater flexibility since the conveyors can be modified to be at different ratios with respect to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the container conveyor of Allen to have the container fill conveyor and the container supply container be run separately from each other as taught by Resnick in order to improve the flexibility of the container conveyor.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 3572005) in view of Craig (US 2022/0267039 A1) and Herzog (US 3905177).
Regarding claim 9, Allen, as modified by Craig, teaches essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1.
However, Allen, as modified by Craig, does not teach the container conveyor comprises at least two side belts.
Herzog teaches a machine comprising a container conveyor (the assembly of 41 and 49 – Fig. 1), wherein the container conveyor comprises at least two side belts (49 – Fig. 2) configured to laterally grip containers on opposing sides of the container (col. 3, lines 37-39) in order to maintain the containers in position (col. 3, lines 37-39), thereby improving the reliability of the machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the container conveyor of Allen to include at least two side belts as taught by Herzog in order to improve the reliability of the system.
Allen, as modified by Craig and Herzog, further teaches:
Claim 10, each of the at least two side belts (49 – Fig. 2, Herzog) is configured to move at a same speed (col. 3, lines 37-42, Herzog).
Claim 11, the container conveyor further comprises at least one bottom belt (41 – Fig. 1, Herzog) configured to contact bottom sides of the containers (see Fig. 1, Herzog).
Claim 12, each of the at least one bottom belt (41 – Fig. 1, Herzog) is configured to move at the same speed as the at least two side belts (49 – Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 37-42, Herzog).
Claim 13, the container conveyor comprises a left module (the left assembly of 49, 52, and 53 – Fig. 2, Herzog) including a first one of the at least two side belts (the left 49 – Fig. 2, Herzog) and a right module (the right assembly of 49, 52, and 53 – Fig. 2, Herzog) including a second one of the at least two side belts (the right 49 – Fig. 2, Herzog).
Claim 14, at least one lateral movement device (the left and right assembly of 59 and 60 – Fig. 2, Herzog), the lateral movement device configured to adjust a distance between the left module and the right module (col. 3, lines 59-63, Herzog).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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 15, the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the processors configured to determine, based on the received signals from the one or more processors, a volume flux of items moving on the item conveyor. Neither Allen nor Craig disclose this feature of determining an item flux and there is no known reference which teaches this either.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights