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
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 19-22, 24-29, 37, 38, 40-47, and 55-56 are currently being examined. By Applicant’s amendment of December 3, 2025, claims 1, 2, 4-11, 19-22, 24-29, 37, 38, 40-47, and 55-56 are pending following:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, and 56 have been amended
Response to Amendments
Applicant has amended the claims to address the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the First Office Action of September 12, 2025. Applicant’s amendments (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 3-9) adequately address and resolve the required issues; therefore, the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – Prior Art
Independent claim 1 recites an operator inducted object processing system comprising an object induction station, object processing system, and a plurality of object collection stations. Independent claim 19 recites the same operator inducted object processing system with the additional limitation of simultaneous horizontal and vertical movement of the carrier. Independent claim 37 combines the limitations of claims 1 and 19 in a method of using the object processing system. The independent claims have been amended to recite a two-dimensional gantry holding the carrier.
Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped amended claims, their rejections and additionally rejected claims which repeat the same limitations. Amendments have been added to the claims and mapped to the prior art.
Table 1: Summary of mapped claims and rejections
Mapped Claims
Dependency
Rejection
Claim(s) with Repeated Limitations (also rejected)
Dependency (indp. claim)
Rejection
Claim 1
Independent
103
Claim 21
19
103
Claim 2
1
103
Claim 20, Claim 38
19, 37
103
Claim 4
1
103
none
--
--
Claim 5
1
103
Claim 22, Claim 40, Claim 41
19, 37
103
Claim 6
1
103
Claim 24, Claim 42
19, 37
103
Claim 7
1
103
Claim 25, Claim 43
19, 37
103
Claim 8
1
103
Claim 26, Claim 44
19, 37
103
Claim 9
1
103
Claim 27, Claim 45
19, 37
103
Claim 10
1
103
Claim 28, Claim 46
19, 37
103
Claim 11
1
103
Claim 29, Claim 47
19, 37
103
Claim 19
Independent
103
Claim 37
Independent
103
Claim 55
37
103
none
--
--
Claim 56
37
103
none
--
--
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19-21, 25, 28, 29, 37, 38, 43, 46, 47, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210).
Regarding independent claim 1, DeWitt et al. discloses:
An operator inducted object processing system [See at least Abstract] comprising:
an object induction station at which objects are provided for processing, [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 50 (induction station); Par. 0055] said object induction station including at least one perception unit for providing perception data regarding an object [See at least Fig.4, Ref. Numerals 85, 88 (imaging elements); Par. 0069];
an object processing system for receiving objects from the object induction station [See at least Pars. 0021, 0050],
a plurality of object collection stations, each of which is associated with a second end of each of the destination locations. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 190 (output bins); operator accessing one object collection station (forward and rear of where vehicle 200 travels) associated with a second end (accessible to operator) of each destination location (output bins)]
While DeWitt et al. discloses the object processing system with object induction station, a carrier, and movement between two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations, DeWitt et al. does not disclose a two-dimensional gantry holding the carrier or simultaneous movement in horizontal and vertical directions. With respect to these limitations, Hansl et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, teaches:
said object processing system including a two-dimensional gantry with a carrier [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) with 14 (mast) along which 17 (adjustable lift) can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along 10 (track 10) on 11 (ceiling); Par. 0031] configured for movement in a first substantially horizontal direction between two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations; each of which extends along the first substantially horizontal direction, [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle), in 24 (travel direction, 1st direction, Fig.2); Par. 0033] and
the two-dimensional gantry with the carrier also being configured for movement in a second substantially vertical direction between the two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations, each of which also extends along the second substantially vertical direction [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle) with 17 (adjustable lift, carrier) displaced vertically along 14 (mast)], wherein the movement in the first substantially horizontal direction is independent of the movement in the second substantially vertical direction, [See at least Par. 0019, 0031; Fig 1, separate drives 13 and 16] and
wherein the carrier is further configured for movement in mutually opposing third directions that are substantially orthogonal to the first and second directions, for urging an object thereon into a first end of an adjacent selected destination location [See at least Figs. 1 and 2, Ref. Numeral 20 (telescopic arms) and 26 (linear conveyors) moving in directions 28 and 29 (conveyor and displacement directions, orthogonal to travel direction 24 and vertical height, out of page), for urging 4 (commodities) onto 3 (shelf); Par. 0033-0035], each of the destination locations including a first end that is accessible by the carrier [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 1 (shelf-stacking device) accessing 3 (rack); Par. 0033];
For examination purposes, under BRI gantry has been construed to encompass an overhead spanning frame or bridge-like structure which supports lifting equipment and can be moved, typical along a set of tracks. The shelf-stacking device 1 of Hansl et al., with a mast 14 along which an adjustable lift 17 can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along a track 10 on a ceiling 11 has been construed as equivalent to the two-dimensional gantry with carrier.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. and combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast with the carrier body of DeWitt et al. The shelf-stacking device with mast moving along a ceiling track of Hansl et al. allows simultaneous movement in two directions for greater control and handling objects, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. with the carrier of DeWitt et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the carrier body of DeWitt et al. and the features of the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the object induction station includes a conveyor with a first end and a second end that is opposite the first end, the second end being proximate the object processing system. [See at least Figs. 1-4, Ref. Numeral 55; Par. 0060, 0061]
Regarding claim 4, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the carrier includes a conveyor. [See at least Fig. 7, Ref. Numeral 212 (conveyor belts); Par. 0104]
Regarding claim 7, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system provides that the object is movable from the carrier to a selected destination location by traveling from the carrier over a gap prior to reaching the destination location. [See at least Par. 0158]
Regarding claim 10, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim [[1]]2, wherein movement of the conveyor is controlled based on a location of a selected destination location being accessed. [See at least Par. 0158]
Regarding claim 11, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 10, wherein movement of the conveyor is controlled further based on object handling parameters regarding an object on the carrier. [See at least Abstract, Pars. 0054, 0151]
Regarding independent claim 19, DeWitt et al. discloses:
An operator inducted object processing system [See at least Abstract] comprising:
an object induction station at which objects are provided for processing [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 50 (induction station); Par. 0055], said object induction station including a first end of a conveyor [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 300 (loading column), first end of conveyance system along which vehicle travels; Pars. 0050, 0051], and at least one perception unit for providing perception data regarding an object [See at least Fig.4, Ref. Numerals 85, 88 (imaging elements); Par. 0069];
an object processing system including a second end of the conveyor [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 190 (output bins), second end of conveyance system along which vehicle travels; Pars. 0021, 0050], for receiving objects from the object induction station,
a plurality of object collection stations, each of which is associated with a second end of each of the destination locations [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 190 (output bins); operator accessing one object collection station (forward and rear of where vehicle 200 travels) associated with a second end (accessible to operator) of each destination location (output bins)].
While DeWitt et al. discloses the object processing system with object induction station, a carrier, and movement between two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations, DeWitt et al. does not disclose a two-dimensional gantry holding the carrier or simultaneous movement in horizontal and vertical directions. With respect to these limitations, Hansl et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, teaches:
said object processing system including a two-dimensional gantry with a carrier [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) with 14 (mast) along which 17 (adjustable lift) can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along 10 (track 10) on 11 (ceiling); Par. 0031] configured for movement in a first substantially horizontal direction adjacent an array of destination locations that extend along the first substantially horizontal direction [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle), in 24 (travel direction, 1st direction, Fig.2); Par. 0033], and
the two-dimensional gantry with the carrier also being configured for movement in a second substantially vertical direction adjacent the array of destination locations that also extend along the second substantially vertical direction [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle) with 17 (adjustable lift, carrier) displaced vertically along 14 (mast)], wherein the movement in the first substantially horizontal direction may be at the same time as the movement in the second substantially vertical direction, [See at least Par. 0019, 0031; Fig 1, separate drives 13 and 16] and
wherein the carrier is further configured for movement in a third direction that is substantially orthogonal to the first and second directions, for urging an object thereon into a first end of an adjacent selected destination location [See at least Figs. 1 and 2, Ref. Numeral 20 (telescopic arms) and 26 (linear conveyors) moving in directions 28 and 29 (conveyor and displacement directions, orthogonal to travel direction 24 and vertical height, out of page), for urging 4 (commodities) onto 3 (shelf); Par. 0033-0035], each of the destination locations including a first end that is accessible by the carrier [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 1 (shelf-stacking device) accessing 3 (rack); Par. 0033];
For examination purposes, under BRI gantry has been construed to encompass an overhead spanning frame or bridge-like structure which supports lifting equipment and can be moved, typical along a set of tracks. The shelf-stacking device 1 of Hansl et al., with a mast 14 along which an adjustable lift 17 can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along a track 10 on a ceiling 11 has been construed as equivalent to the two-dimensional gantry with carrier.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. and combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast with the carrier body of DeWitt et al. The shelf-stacking device with mast moving along a ceiling track of Hansl et al. allows simultaneous movement in two directions for greater control and handling objects, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. with the carrier of DeWitt et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the carrier body of DeWitt et al. and the features of the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20, 21, 25, 28, and 29 recite the same limitations as previously mapped claims 1, 2, 7, 10, and 11 (see table above) while depending from independent claim 19 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210).
Regarding independent claim 37, DeWitt et al. discloses:
A method of processing objects [See Abstract] comprising:
receiving objects at an object induction station at which objects are provided for processing [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 50 (induction station); Par. 0055], said object induction station including at least one perception unit for providing perception data regarding an object [See at least Fig.4, Ref. Numerals 85, 88 (imaging elements); Par. 0069];
receiving objects at a plurality of object collection stations, each of which is associated with a second end of each of the destination locations [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numeral 190 (output bins); operator accessing one object collection station (forward and rear of where vehicle 200 travels) associated with a second end (accessible to operator) of each destination location (output bins)].
While DeWitt et al. discloses the object processing system with object induction station, a carrier, and movement between two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations, DeWitt et al. does not disclose a two-dimensional gantry holding the carrier or simultaneous movement in horizontal and vertical directions. With respect to these limitations, Hansl et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, teaches:
receiving objects from the object induction station on a carrier, the carrier being mounted on a two-dimensional gantry; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) with 14 (mast) along which 17 (adjustable lift) can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along 10 (track 10) on 11 (ceiling); Par. 0031]
moving the two-dimensional gantry with the carrier simultaneously both in a first substantially horizontal direction between two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations [See at least Par. 0019, 0031; Fig 1, separate drives 13 and 16], each of which extends along the first substantially horizontal direction [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle), in 24 (travel direction, 1st direction, Fig.2); Par. 0033], and in a second substantially vertical direction between the two mutually opposing arrays of destination locations, each of which also extends along the second substantially vertical direction; [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (shelf-stacking device) moving between 2 (racking system) with 3 (shelves for storing goods) in two mutually opposing arrays disposed on both sides of 7 (racking aisle) with 17 (adjustable lift, carrier) displaced vertically along 14 (mast)]
moving the carrier in either of mutually opposing third directions that are substantially orthogonal to the first and second directions, for urging an object thereon into a first end of an adjacent selected destination location [See at least Figs. 1 and 2, Ref. Numeral 20 (telescopic arms) and 26 (linear conveyors) moving in directions 28 and 29 (conveyor and displacement directions, orthogonal to travel direction 24 and vertical height, out of page), for urging 4 (commodities) onto 3 (shelf); Par. 0033-0035], each of the destination locations including a first end that is accessible by the carrier [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 1 (shelf-stacking device) accessing 3 (rack); Par. 0033];
For examination purposes, under BRI gantry has been construed to encompass an overhead spanning frame or bridge-like structure which supports lifting equipment and can be moved, typical along a set of tracks. The shelf-stacking device 1 of Hansl et al., with a mast 14 along which an adjustable lift 17 can be displaced vertically while the shelf-stack device is moved horizontally along a track 10 on a ceiling 11 has been construed as equivalent to the two-dimensional gantry with carrier.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. and combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast with the carrier body of DeWitt et al. The shelf-stacking device with mast moving along a ceiling track of Hansl et al. allows simultaneous movement in two directions for greater control and handling objects, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. with the carrier of DeWitt et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the carrier body of DeWitt et al. and the features of the shelf-stacking device moving along a ceiling track with adjustable lift displaceable along a vertical mast of Hansl et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hansl et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 38, 43, 46, and 47 recite the same limitations as previously mapped claims 2, 7, 10, and 11 (see table above) while depending from independent claim 37 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210).
Regarding claim 55, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 37, wherein the receiving objects at the object induction station includes triggering at least one beam break. [See at least Par. 0071, beam sensors to detect leading and trailing edges of the item]
Claims 5, 6, 22, 24, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Glorfield (US 6290055).
Regarding claim 5, while DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. teach a carrier with a conveyor, they do not explicitly teach the conveyor including cleats. With respect to these limitations, Glorfield (US Patent 6290055), directed to solving the same problem, preventing items from falling off during conveyance, teaches:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 4, wherein the conveyor of the carrier includes portions that are each separated from one another by cleats. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 1 (cleated conveyor belt) with 5 (cleats) separating portions of the conveyor belt; Col. 3, Lines 14-20]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Glorfield and combine the cleats with the conveyor of DeWitt et al. The cleats of Glorfield allows more stable conveyance of items by preventing items from falling off during transport, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the cleats of Glorfield with the conveyor of DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the conveyor of DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. and the features of the cleats of Glorfield would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Glorfield because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, preventing items from falling off during conveyance, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, DeWitt et al. discloses:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the conveyor includes a pair of mutually opposing wall sections that extend along wall directions that are substantially parallel with the third directions. [See at least Fig. 7, Ref. Numeral 231 (wall), mutually opposing wall sections that extend the width of the vehicle; Par. 0109]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Glorfield, see claim 5.
Claims 22 and 24 recite the same limitations as claims 5 and 6 while depending from independent claim 19 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Glorfield (US 6290055).
Claims 40-42 recite the same limitations as claims 5 and 6 while depending from independent claim 37 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Glorfield (US 6290055).
For brevity, mapping of claims 22, 24, and 40-42 has not been repeated. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Glorfield, see claim 5.
Claims 8, 9, 26, 27, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200027292).
For brevity, only claims 8, and 9, which contain new or additional limitations not addressed by previously citations, have been mapped. See table above.
Regarding claim 8, while DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. teach a two-dimensional gantry moving in both first horizontal and second vertical directions simultaneously holding a carrier with conveyor and telescopic support arms configured for movement and urging objects in a third direction orthogonal to first and second directions, they do not explicitly teach the conveyor mounted on a transversely slidable stage. With respect to these limitations, Kim et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, teaches:
The operator inducted object processing system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the conveyor is mounted on a transversely slidable stage that may be moved toward a destination location along a direction that is substantially parallel with the third direction. [See at least Figs. 4 and 5, Ref. Numerals 330b (withdrawal unit), 331b (support plate), and 332 (plate sliding module); Pars. 0066, 0067];
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. and combine the sliding plate with the carrier of DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. The sliding plate of Kim et al. allows an extended reach to bring the carrier closer to the destination bin for greater control and handling of fragile objects, enabling increased effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the sliding plate of Kim et al. with the carrier of DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the carrier of DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. and the features of the sliding plate of Kim et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, while DeWitt et al. teaches controlling movement of the carrier and its features responsive to object handling parameters of an object on the conveyor [See claim 11] and Hansl et al. teaches a two-dimensional gantry moving in both first horizontal and second vertical directions simultaneously holding a carrier with conveyor and telescopic support arms configured for movement and urging objects in a third direction orthogonal to first and second directions, they do not explicitly teach the conveyor mounted on a transversely slidable stage. With respect to these limitations, Kim et al., directed to solving the same problem, delivering/retrieving objects from destination locations, teaches:
the transversely slidable stage [See at least Figs. 4 and 5, Ref. Numerals 330b (withdrawal unit), 331b (support plate), and 332 (plate sliding module); Pars. 0066, 0067]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al., see claim 8.
Claims 26 and 27 recite the same limitations as previously mapped claims 8 and 9 (see table above) while depending from independent claim 19 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200027292).
Claims 44 and 45 recite the same limitations as previously mapped claims 8 and 9 (see table above) while depending from independent claim 37 and are rejected on the same basis as being unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200027292).
For brevity, mapping of claims 26, 27, 44, and 45 has not been repeated. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. and Hansl et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al., see claim 8.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over DeWitt et al. (US 2020/0152259) in view of Hansl et al. (US 2004/0126210) and further in view Singleton (US Patent 11305947).
Regarding claim 56, while DeWitt et al. discloses receiving objects at the induction station, DeWitt et al. does not explicitly disclose receiving objects at the induction station including moving a push door. With respect to these limitations, Singleton directed to the same technology — article conveyance — teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 37, wherein the receiving objects at the induction station includes moving a push door. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 110 (door), 108 (frame); Col. 4, Lines 20-27]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeWitt et al. to incorporate the teachings of Singleton and combine the push door into the induction station of DeWitt et al. The push door of Singleton functions as a controllable pass-through, enabling greater safety by detecting objects and operator activities to coordinate movement of the carrier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the push door of Singleton into the induction station of DeWitt et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the induction station of DeWitt et al. and the features of the push door of Singleton would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Singleton because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (article conveyance), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655