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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on 10/08/2025.
Claims 1-8 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1 lines 10-12, the phrase “a computing device that processes three-dimensional scanning data acquired from the three-dimensional scanner to detect the internal empty space region of the packaging box, calculates” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what “calculates” is referring to. It is unclear if the computing device is further configured to “calculate” or if this other device is conducting the “calculate” process. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “a computing device that processes three-dimensional scanning data acquired from the three-dimensional scanner to detect the internal empty space region of the packaging box, wherein the computing device is configured to: calculate”.
Regarding claim 1 lines 12-13, the phrase “calculate, for each combination of a cushioning material stacking direction, a type of cushioning material” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is being calculated. It is unclear if the calculate is referring to the type of cushioning material and the combination is referring to the stacking direction, or if the combination is referring to both the type of cushioning material and the stacking direction while the calculate is referring to an undisclosed feature. It is also unclear how the system calculates a type of material. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “comparing for each combination: a cushioning material stacking direction; a type of cushioning material”.
Regarding claim 1 lines 13-14, the phrase “and a cushioning material loading path pattern, a cushioning material loading path for loading” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is a new or previously mentioned feature. When a new feature is introduced, the feature should be preceded by “a”. When a previous feature is being referred to, the feature should be preceded by "the" or "said". If the cushioning material loading path pattern is different from the cushioning material loading path, it is also unclear if the cushioning material loading path is part of the same list as the cushioning material loading path pattern. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “and a cushioning material loading path pattern, wherein the comparison is for loading”.
Regarding claim 2 lines 4, the phrase “wherein a direction” renders claim 2 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is a new or previously mentioned feature. When a new feature is introduced, the feature should be preceded by “a”. When a previous feature is being referred to, the feature should be preceded by "the" or "said". Prior to the quoted phrase, claim 2 discloses a first, second, and third direction. It is unclear if the “direction” is the same or different from the other directions. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “wherein the first direction is a variance”
Claims 3-4 are dependent of claim 1 and include all the same limitations.
Regarding claim 5 lines 10-11, the phrase “calculating, by the computing device, for each combination of a cushioning material stacking direction, a type of cushioning material” renders claim 5 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is being calculated. It is unclear if the calculating is referring to the type of cushioning material and the combination is referring to the stacking direction, or if the combination is referring to both the type of cushioning material and the stacking direction while the calculate is referring to an undisclosed feature. It is also unclear how the system calculates a type of material. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “comparing for each combination: a cushioning material stacking direction; a type of cushioning material”.
Regarding claim 6 lines 3, the phrase “wherein a direction” renders claim 6 vague and indefinite because it is unclear if this is a new or previously mentioned feature. When a new feature is introduced, the feature should be preceded by “a”. When a previous feature is being referred to, the feature should be preceded by "the" or "said". Prior to the quoted phrase, claim 6 discloses a first, second, and third direction. It is unclear if the “direction” is the same or different from the other directions. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “wherein the first direction is a variance”
Claims 7-8 are dependent of claim 5 and include all the same limitations.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Corradi et al. (9,102,429) in view of references Junga et al. (11,242,168) and Cheich et al. (7,788,884).
Regarding claim 1, Corradi et al. disclose a cushioning filling and packaging system comprising:
a three-dimensional scanner (6) installed at a predetermined distance above a conveying device (4),
wherein the three-dimensional scanner (6) is configured to three-dimensionally scan, in a downward direction form above a packaging box (2), an interior of the packaging box (2) being conveyed on the conveying device (3) in a state in which an upper surface of the packaging box (2) is open;
a robot (8) that performs an operation of loading a cushioning material (31) into an internal empty space region of the packaging box (2); and
a computing device (14) that processes the three-dimensional scanning data acquired from the three-dimensional scanner (6) to detect the internal empty space region of the packaging box,
wherein the computing device (14) is configured to:
compare modalities for dispensing the cushioning material (31),
wherein the modality includes a type of cushioning material and a loading path patter;
select modality that minimizes the difference between a volume of the cushioning material (31) and a volume of the internal empty space region;
generate a command code to operate the robot (8) to load the cushioning material (31) into the internal empty space region,
wherein the computing device divides the internal empty space region into a plurality of individual stacking planes having a predetermined thickness in accordance with a cushioning material loading direction.
(Figure 1, 2, 6 and Column 3 lines 55-67, Column 4 lines 4-10, 16-21, Column 5 lines 22-28, Column 6 lines 20-32, Column 6 lines 58-67 through Column 7 lines 1-3, Column 7 lines 54-58, Column 8 lines 22-27, 48-55)
However, Corradi et al. do not disclose a conveyor belt, and do not disclose determining a stacking direction.
Junga et al. disclose a cushioning material filling system comprising a conveying device, wherein the conveying device includes either a driven conveyor belt or a series of driven conveyor rollers. (Column 3 lines 13-19)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the conveyor rollers with a conveyor belt as taught by Junga et al., since column 3 lines 17-19 of Junga et al. states a conveyor belt would work equally as well at transporting the packaging box to the desired position, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Cheich et al. disclose a cushioning material filling system comprising: a dunnage filling system (470); a scanner (484); and a computing device (490), wherein the computing device (490) determines a stacking direction and loading path pattern depending on the data received from the scanner (484). (Figure 11, 21 and Column 10 lines 57-65, Column 14 lines 40-50)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Corradi et al. by incorporating the process of determining a stacking direction and a loading path pattern as taught by Cheich et al., since column 14 lines 31-33 of Cheich et al. states such a modification would improve the ability to fill a wider variety of containers.
Regarding claim 2, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the cushioning material stacking direction includes a third direction perpendicular to a plane formed by a first direction and a second direction, wherein the first direction is variance of the packaging box empty-space modeling corresponding to the internal empty space region that is the greatest, wherein the second direction is variance of the packaging box empty-space modeling corresponding to the internal empty space region that is the second greatest. (Corradi et al. – Column 7 lines 54-58) (Cheich et al. – Figure 11 and Column 10 lines 57-65)
Regarding claim 3, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the cushioning material stacking direction includes at least one of: a horizontal direction parallel to the bottom surface of the packaging box (Corradi et al. – 2); and a vertical direction perpendicular to the bottom surface of the packaging box (Corradi et al. – 2). (Corradi et al. – Column 7 lines 54-58) (Cheich et al. – Figure 11 and Column 10 lines 57-65)
Regarding claim 5, Corradi et al. a method comprising the steps of:
scanning in a downward direction from above a packaging box (2),
wherein the scanning is conducted by a three-dimensional scanner (6) installed at a predetermined distance above a conveying device (4), and
wherein the three-dimensional scanner (6) is configured to scan an interior of the packaging box (2) being conveyed on the conveying device (3) in a state in which an upper surface of the packaging box (2) is open;
processing the three-dimensional scanning data acquired form the three-dimensional scanner (6) to detect an internal empty space region of the packaging box (2),
wherein the processing is conducted by a computing device (14);
comparing modalities for dispensing the cushioning material (31),
wherein the comparing is conducted by the computing device (14), and
wherein the modality includes a type of cushioning material and a loading path patter;
selecting a modality that minimizes the difference between a volume of the cushioning material (31) and a volume of the internal empty space region,
wherein the selecting is conducted by the computing device (14);
generate a command code to operate a robot (8) to load the cushioning material (31) into the internal empty space region,
wherein the generating is conducted by the computing device (14); and
performing an operation of loading the cushioning material (31) into the internal empty space region according to the command code,
wherein the performing is conducted by the robot (8), and
wherein the computing device divides the internal empty space region into a plurality of individual stacking planes having a predetermined thickness in accordance with a cushioning material loading direction.
(Figure 1, 2, 6 and Column 3 lines 55-67, Column 4 lines 4-10, 16-21, Column 5 lines 22-28, Column 6 lines 20-32, Column 6 lines 58-67 through Column 7 lines 1-3, Column 7 lines 54-58, Column 8 lines 22-27, 48-55)
However, Corradi et al. do not disclose a conveyor belt, and do not disclose determining a stacking direction.
Junga et al. disclose a cushioning material filling system comprising a conveying device, wherein the conveying device includes either a driven conveyor belt or a series of driven conveyor rollers. (Column 3 lines 13-19)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the conveyor rollers with a conveyor belt as taught by Junga et al., since column 3 lines 17-19 of Junga et al. states a conveyor belt would work equally as well at transporting the packaging box to the desired position, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Cheich et al. disclose a cushioning material filling system comprising: a dunnage filling system (470); a scanner (484); and a computing device (490), wherein the computing device (490) determines a stacking direction and loading path pattern depending on the data received from the scanner (484). (Figure 11, 21 and Column 10 lines 57-65, Column 14 lines 40-50)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Corradi et al. by incorporating the step of determining a stacking direction and a loading path pattern as taught by Cheich et al., since column 14 lines 31-33 of Cheich et al. states such a modification would improve the ability to fill a wider variety of containers.
Regarding claim 6, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the cushioning material stacking direction includes a third direction perpendicular to a plane formed by a first direction and a second direction, wherein the first direction is variance of the packaging box empty-space modeling corresponding to the internal empty space region that is the greatest, wherein the second direction is variance of the packaging box empty-space modeling corresponding to the internal empty space region that is the second greatest. (Corradi et al. – Column 7 lines 54-58) (Cheich et al. – Figure 11 and Column 10 lines 57-65)
Regarding claim 7, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the cushioning material stacking direction includes at least one of: a horizontal direction parallel to the bottom surface of the packaging box (Corradi et al. – 2); and a vertical direction perpendicular to the bottom surface of the packaging box (Corradi et al. – 2). (Corradi et al. – Column 7 lines 54-58) (Cheich et al. – Figure 11 and Column 10 lines 57-65)
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Corradi et al. (9,102,429) in view of references Junga et al. (11,242,168) and Cheich et al. (7,788,884) as applied to claim 1 and 5 respectively, and further in view of reference Funaki et al. (7,780,354).
Regarding claim 4, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose comparing a filling rate to a predetermined reference.
Funaki et al. disclose a filling system configured to: determine the filing rate of a package; and terminate the filling process if the filling rate is equal to a predetermined reference value. (Column 4 lines 63-67 through Column 5 lines 1-2, Column 5 lines 10-12, Column 9 lines 27-32, 41-43)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the system of Corradi et al. by incorporating the process of determine the filing rate as taught by Funaki et al., since column 9 lines 30-32 states such a modification would prevent improper overfilling of the package.
Regarding claim 8, Corradi et al. modified by Junga et al. and Cheich et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose comparing a filling rate to a predetermined reference.
Funaki et al. disclose a filling system configured to: determine the filing rate of a package; and terminate the filling process if the filling rate is equal to a predetermined reference value. (Column 4 lines 63-67 through Column 5 lines 1-2, Column 5 lines 10-12, Column 9 lines 27-32, 41-43)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Corradi et al. by incorporating the step of determine the filing rate as taught by Funaki et al., since column 9 lines 30-32 states such a modification would prevent improper overfilling of the package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 August 6, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights