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 .
Status of Claims
This is the fourth Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Claims 1, 12, and 15 are currently amended. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendments of claims 1, 12, 15, and corresponding dependent claim have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as being unpatentable over O’brien et al. (US 20160244262A1) in view of Prentice et al. (US20020007227A1) in view of Murphy et al. (US10471597B1), and further in view of Bastian et al. (US20170066592A1), hereinafter O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, respectively.
Regarding Applicant’s argument for independent claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that none of the references cited teaches, suggests, or discloses the following feature of amended claim 1: “wherein the camera is movable on a gantry above a gantry arrangement where the robotic picking device is mounted”. Examiner founds this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, as discussed below. Independent claims 12 and 15 recite similar elements as claim 1 and were, likewise, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Each of claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-21, depend directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 12, or 15 in view of O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, and by dependency of claims 1, 12, or 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as discussed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien in view of Prentice in view of Murphy and further in view of Bastian.
Regarding claim 1, O’brien discloses a picking system (Fig. 1, [0032], “automated order fulfillment system”) configured to pick items from, and put items into, storage containers (“receptacles”), wherein the picking system comprises a picking station (13, Fig. 3), and wherein the picking station comprises:
a picking system controller (“control” 15, [0049], “item handing system” 16) configured to receive product orders from warehouse management system (implicit that the control 15 gets a “pick list” from a management system; [0003]; FIG. 17A steps 304, 306, 308);
at least a first container contents handling position ("buffers" 23) and a second container contents handling position ("buffers" 25);
a camera (“vision system” 18, [0033]) above the first and second container contents handling positions (“vision system” 18, Fig. 4, shows vision system 18 above and the field of view of the two buffers 23, 25) such that the camera is configured to produce a first image of contents of a first storage container at the first container contents handling position and a second image of a second storage container positioned at the second container contents handling position ("the vision system has a field view f encompassing the at least two donor receptacle buffers. A control causes the vision system to scan items", [0006], implicit that the vision system can scan a first image at first buffer 23 and a second image at second buffer 25);
an image processing system (“control for order fulfillment” 10) further being in communication with a picking system controller and adapted to inform the picking system controller of the position of the specific item ("vision system 18…is adapted to scanning items…in order to obtain location data of items…to develop a "pick list"…manipulator is adapted to picking an item from a donor receptacle at the recipient handling system using the location data of items from the pick list", [0033]);
a robotic picking device (“item manipulator” 20), wherein the robotic picking device is in communication with the picking system controller and is configured to, under guidance from the picking system controller, to pick said specific item from said position in the storage container (“control causes manipulator to pick item from a donor receptacle…”, [0006]);
wherein the camera and the robotic picking device are arranged to operate, at any one instance, on different containers such that the camera is producing an image and the image processing system is processing the produced image of the contents of a storage container in a first product order while the robotic picking device is handling a second storage container on the basis of an earlier image that has been produced by the camera and processed by the image processing system (“Vision system 18 scan items in receptacle overlapping in time with manipulator 20 picking items from another receptacle”, [0033]; “The program then causes vision system 18 to scan the contents of the donor receptable at the Station B Buffer at 329 to locate pickable surfaces at 333 and populate a pick list at 339… then manipulator begins picking items from the receptable at the Station B at buffer 347”, [0051], Fig. 17A and 17B).
However, O’brien does not teach of a camera mounted for movement, an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera, and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Prentice, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera mounted for movement ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]), and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]).
However, Prentice does not further teach of an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera; and a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing ("the image processing component 375 processes digital images captured by the stereo cameras", Col. 10 lines 21-23) the first image and the second image produced by the camera ("control logic for the robot picking arm 210 could capture one or more images of the item 250 using stereo camera device", Col. 8 lines 60-62, where a stereo camera is a single unit that has 2 lenses to take an image of a subject form two different positions).
However, Murphy does not further teach of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Bastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted ("further comprising a sensor mast extending from the gantry, and a sensor system mounted to an end of the sensor mast to sense activity around the storage containers", [0013], "The robotic arm in one form is mounted on a gantry…", [0004]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the system of O’brien with a movable camera on a gantry of Prentice, the image processing system of Murphy, and a camera above a gantry arrangement of Bastian with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the performance of the system by providing the camera the ability to easily move between multiple positions (Prentice, [0024]) and to enable the sensor system to monitor activity across all storage containers simultaneously, independent of the robotic arm’s position (Bastian, [0086]). In addition to, an image processing component capable of performing operations (such as applying filters) on digital image captured by the camera to help identify the items within the tote (Murphy, Col. 15 lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 3, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the picking station comprises at least two container contents handling positions (“station A buffer”, “station B buffer”) and wherein the robotic picking device is configured to move to different picking positions where it is able to pick one specific item from a first storage container positioned at a first container contents handling position and another specific item from a second storage container positioned at a second container contents handling position different from the first ([0051] lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 4, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the picking station comprises at least two container contents handling positions (“station A buffer”, “recipient buffer” 26) and wherein the robotic picking device is configured to move to different picking positions where it is able to pick one specific item from a first storage container arranged at a first container contents handling position, the first storage container being a picking container (“donor receptacle”), and the second storage container arranged at a second container contents handling position, the second storage container being a product order consolidation container (“recipient receptacle”, [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 3 as stated above, additionally, wherein the camera (“vision system 18 is scanning a donor receptacle…”) is arranged to produce an image of the first storage container positioned at the first container contents handling position and an image of the second storage container positioned at the second container contents handling position (“station A buffer”, “station B buffer”, [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 5 as stated above, additionally, wherein the camera is mounted for movement above the storage containers (“vision system” 18, Fig. 3, [0033], the vision system is mounted for operation above the donor receptacles).
Regarding claim 9, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the robotic picking device is a gantry-mounted robot or an industrial robot (“Fanuc M20ia robot arm”, [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the image processing system comprises means for ID recognition of a storage container's ID (“license plate”, [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, O’brien discloses a method of picking items from, and putting items into, containers at a picking station under the control of a picking system controller (“automated method for fulfilling orders”, [0006) wherein the method comprises:
the picking system controller (“control” 15) receiving product orders from a warehouse management system (implicit that the control 15 gets a “pick list” from a management system; [0003]; FIG. 17A steps 304, 306, 308);
the picking station receiving delivery of a storage container to be picked (“the donor receptacles are sent to donor-handling system 12 at 312 and sent to one of the donor buffers 23, 25 at 314”, [0049]; “vision system field of view f encompasses buffers 23, 25…while vision system 18 guides manipulator 20 picking an item from a donor receptacle”, [0035];
producing an image of a contents of the storage container using a camera above a first container contents handling position and a second container contents handling position (“vision system” 18, Fig. 4, shows vision system 18 above and the field of view of the two buffers 23, 25) such that the camera is configured to produce a first image of contents of a first storage container at the first container contents handling position and a second image of a second storage container positioned at the second container contents handling position ("the vision system has a field view f encompassing the at least two donor receptacle buffers. A control causes the vision system to scan items", [0006], implicit that the vision system can scan a first image at first buffer and a second image at second buffer 25);
the image processing system (“control for order fulfillment” 10) informing the picking system controller of the position of the specific item in the storage container ("vision system 18…is adapted to scanning items…in order to obtain location data of items…to develop a "pick list"…manipulator is adapted to picking an item from a donor receptacle at the recipient handling system using the location data of items from the pick list", [0033]);
the picking system controller determining a sequence of picking movements (“guide”, [0035]) for a robotic picking device to execute in order to pick the specific item from the storage container based on the position determined by the image processing system ([0033], “control 15 controls operation of vision system”, [0049]);
conveying the storage container to a picking location of the picking station where it can be picked by the robotic picking device (“The donor receptacles are sent to donor-handling system 12 at 312 and sent to one of the donor buffers 23, 25 at 314”, [0049]; “vision system field of view f encompasses buffers 23, 25…while vision system 18 guides manipulator 20 picking an item from a donor receptacle”, [0035]);
the picking system controller instructing the robotic picking device to execute the sequence of picking movements (“guide”, [0035]) to pick the specific item from the storage container during handling of the product order ([0033], “control 15 controls operation of vision system”, [0049]),
wherein the camera and the robotic picking device are arranged to operate, at any one instance, on different storage containers such that the camera produces an image of the contents of a first storage container for a first product order, the image processing system processes the image and the picking system controller determines a sequence of picking movements for the robotic picking device for that first product order while the robotic picking device is handling a second storage container on the basis of an earlier image that has been produced by the camera and processed by the image processing system (“Vision system 18 scan items in receptacle overlapping in time with manipulator 20 picking items from another receptacle”, [0033]; “The program then causes vision system 18 to scan the contents of the donor receptable at the Station B Buffer at 329 to locate pickable surfaces at 333 and populate a pick list at 339… then manipulator begins picking items from the receptable at the Station B at buffer 347”, [0051], Fig. 17A and 17B).
However, O’brien does not teach of a camera mounted for movement, processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera using an image processing system that is in communication with the camera to identify a position of a specific item in the respective storage container, the specific item being included in a product order which is to be completed, and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Prentice, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera mounted for movement ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]), and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]).
However, Prentice does not further teach of processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera using an image processing system that is in communication with the camera to identify a position of a specific item in the respective storage container, the specific item being included in a product order which is to be completed; and a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera ("control logic for the robot picking arm 210 could capture one or more images of the item 250 using stereo camera device", Col. 8 lines 60-62, where a stereo camera is a single unit that has 2 lenses to take an image of a subject form two different positions) using an image processing system that is in communication with the camera ("the image processing component 375 processes digital images captured by the stereo cameras", Col. 10 lines 21-23) to identify a position of a specific item in the respective storage container, the specific item being included in a product order which is to be completed ("the control logic could then analyze these images to…verify that the item 250, identify a placement of the item 250 within the tote 240", Col. 8 lines 62-65).
However, Murphy does not further teach of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Bastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted ("further comprising a sensor mast extending from the gantry, and a sensor system mounted to an end of the sensor mast to sense activity around the storage containers", [0013], "The robotic arm in one form is mounted on a gantry…", [0004]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of O’brien with a movable camera on a gentry of Prentice, the image processing system of Murphy, and a camera above a gantry arrangement of Bastian with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the performance of the system by providing the camera the ability to easily move between multiple positions (Prentice, [0024]) and to enable the sensor system to monitor activity across all storage containers simultaneously, independent of the robotic arm’s position (Bastian, [0086]). In addition to, an image processing component capable of performing operations (such as applying filters) on digital image captured by the camera to help identify the items within the tote (Murphy, Col. 15 lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 16, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 15 as stated above, wherein the image is processed by the image processing system before the storage container arrives at a picking position and the picking system controller has determined a set of picking movements before the storage container arrives to be picked (FIG. 17B; “vision data is processed” 332; “pick list is populated” 338, [0050]; “pick item” 348, [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 15 as stated above, additionally, wherein the determination of the picking movements of the robotic picking device is independent of the delivery of the storage containers to the picking position(s) (“The donor receptacles are sent to donor-handling system 12 at 312 and sent to one of the donor buffers 23, 25 at 314”, [0049]; “vision system field of view f encompasses buffers 23, 25…while vision system 18 guides manipulator 20 picking an item from a donor receptacle”, [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 16 as stated above, additionally, wherein the picking system controller optimizes the picking movements of the robotic picking device between specific item(s) in different storage containers at different container contents handling positions (“…manipulator picks items from the pick list in sequence according to height of the items”, [0009]).
Regarding claim 19, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 16 as stated above, additionally, wherein the image processing system comprises an object database and wherein the image processing system compares the produced image with images in the object database (“pick list”) in order to determine the position of the specific item in the storage container (“location data of items”, [0033]).
Regarding claim 21, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 16 as stated above, additionally, wherein the image processing system comprises means for ID recognition of a storage container's ID (“license plate”, [0032]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, in view of Uchiyama (US 2016/0184995), hereinafter Uchiyama.
Regarding claim 2, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified O’brien does not teach that the picking system controller is configured to perform routing calculations for the robotic picking device and to incorporate the work flow sequence from those routing calculations into the picking device's operational sequence.
Uchiyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a robot controller (2) that receives the movement command (Step S504), and interprets the movement command in accordance with the type of the manipulator 1 (Step S505, FIG. 5, [0102]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have known to use a known routing calculation technique of Uchiyama to the teachings of modified O’brien for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, in view of Ottitsch et al. (WO 2019/155009A1), hereinafter Ottitsch.
Regarding claim 7, modified O’brien teaches of all limitations in claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified O’brien does not teach that wherein the camera is stationary and arranged to produce an image of the contents of at least one storage container when it is positioned at a container contents handling position.
Ottitsch, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a stationary camera ([0165] lines 1-3) and produces an image of ingredients within containers kept on hand in loading stations ([0105-0106]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of modified O’brien with the stationary camera of Ottitsch with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because stationary cameras are much less prone to errors and require less maintenance because there are no moving parts ([0116] lines 4-7).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, in view of Henderson (US 4,786,229).
Regarding claim 11, modified O’brien teaches of all limitations in claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified O’brien does not teach that wherein the picking system is arranged on a mezzanine.
Henderson, in the same field of endeavor, does teach of a work station (124) located on mezzanine level (126, Col. 13, lines 8-9).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the picking system of modified O’brien with the picking station on a mezzanine with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that the storage containers are more accessible from the bottom of the mezzanine.
Claim 8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien, Prentice, and Murphy, in view of Ingram-Tedd et al. (US 2018/0162639A1), hereinafter Ingram-Tedd.
Regarding claim 8, modified O’brien discloses all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified O’brien does not teach that wherein the picking system comprises a section of a rail-based delivery system with perpendicular tracks in X and Y direction for supporting delivery vehicles carrying containers accessible from above.
Ingram-Tedd, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a rail-based delivery system (abstract, [0036]) with perpendicular sets of rails with a set of parallel horizontal members X, Y (18, 20; [0077] lines 3-7) for supporting robotic load handling device (30) operating on across the top of the frame structure (14, [0016]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the picking system of modified O’brien with the rail-based delivery system of Ingram-Tedd to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements in order to create a storage and retrieval system capable of storing picked containers.
Regarding claim 12, O’brien teaches of a picking system (“automated order fulfillment system”) comprising:
a picking system controller (“control” 15, [0049], “item handing system” 16) configured to receive product orders from a warehouse management system (implicit that the control 15 gets a “pick list” from a management system; [0003]; FIG. 17A steps 304, 306, 308);
at least a first container contents handling position ("buffers" 23) and a second container contents handling position ("buffers" 25);
a camera (“vision system” 18, [0033]) above the first and second container contents handling positions (“vision system” 18, Fig. 4, shows vision system 18 above and the field of view of the two buffers 23, 25) such that the camera is configured to produce a first image of contents of a first storage container at the first container contents handling position and a second image of a second storage container positioned at the second container contents handling position ("the vision system has a field view f encompassing the at least two donor receptacle buffers. A control causes the vision system to scan items", [0006], implicit that the vision system can scan a first image at first buffer 23 and a second image at second buffer 25);
an image processing system (“control for order fulfillment” 10) further being in communication with a picking system controller and adapted to inform the picking system controller of the position of the specific item ("vision system 18…is adapted to scanning items…in order to obtain location data of items…to develop a "pick list"…manipulator is adapted to picking an item from a donor receptacle at the recipient handling system using the location data of items from the pick list", [0033]);
a robotic picking device (“item manipulator” 20), wherein the robotic picking device is in communication with the picking system controller and is configured to, under guidance from the picking system controller, to pick said specific item from said position in the storage container (“control causes manipulator to pick item from a donor receptacle…”, [0006]);
wherein the camera and the robotic picking device are arranged to operate, at any one instance, on different containers such that the camera is producing an image and the image processing system is processing the produced image of the contents of a storage container in a first product order while the robotic picking device is handling a second storage container on the basis of an earlier image that has been produced by the camera and processed by the image processing system (“Vision system 18 scan items in receptacle overlapping in time with manipulator 20 picking items from another receptacle”, [0033]; “The program then causes vision system 18 to scan the contents of the donor receptable at the Station B Buffer at 329 to locate pickable surfaces at 333 and populate a pick list at 339… then manipulator begins picking items from the receptable at the Station B at buffer 347”, [0051], Fig. 17A and 17B).
However, O’brien does not teach of an automated storage and retrieval system comprising a rail system with perpendicular tracks in X and Y direction, wherein the automated storage and retrieval system comprises a plurality of remotely operated vehicles configured to move laterally on the rail system, a camera mounted for movement, an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera, and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Ingram-Tedd, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a rail-based delivery system (abstract, [0036]) with perpendicular sets of rails with a set of parallel horizontal members X, Y (18, 20; [0077]) and further comprises a plurality of remotely operated vehicles configured to move laterally on the rail system ([0016]).
However, Ingram-Tedd does not teach of a camera mounted for movement or an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera, and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Prentice, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera mounted for movement ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]), and wherein the camera is movable on a gantry ("The vision processor 306 controls and processes signals received from cameras 320 mounted on the gantry systems", [0042], "Gantry system 22a…are slidably movable along the rails mounted", [0026]).
However, Prentice does not further teach of an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing the first image and the second image produced by the camera; and the camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Murphy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of an image processing system in communication with the camera for processing ("the image processing component 375 processes digital images captured by the stereo cameras", Col. 10 lines 21-23) the first image and the second image produced by the camera ("control logic for the robot picking arm 210 could capture one or more images of the item 250 using stereo camera device", Col. 8 lines 60-62, where a stereo camera is a single unit that has 2 lenses to take an image of a subject form two different positions).
However, Murphy does not further teach of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted.
Bastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a camera above a gantry arrangement wherein the robotic picking device is mounted ("further comprising a sensor mast extending from the gantry, and a sensor system mounted to an end of the sensor mast to sense activity around the storage containers", [0013], "The robotic arm in one form is mounted on a gantry…", [0004]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the picking system of O’brien with the rail-based delivery system of Ingram-Tedd, the movable camera on a gantry of Prentice, the image processing system of Murphy, and the camera above a gantry arrangement with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that the rail-based delivery system of Ingram-Tedd offers a significant improvement in storage density, as containers are stacked on top of one another and the stacks are arranged in rows. The containers are accessed from above, removing the need for aisles between the rows and allowing more containers to be stored in a given space (Ingram-Tedd, [0006]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the performance of the system by providing the camera the ability to easily move between multiple positions (Prentice, [0024]) and to enable the sensor system to monitor activity across all storage containers simultaneously, independent of the robotic arm’s position (Bastian, [0086]). In addition to, an image processing component capable of performing operations (such as applying filters) on digital image captured by the camera to help identify the items within the tote (Murphy, Col. 15 lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 13, modified O’brien teaches of all limitations of claim 12 as discussed above, additionally, teaches of a vision system (18) arranged within a picking station where the item manipulator (20) is arranged such that the position of the item(s) to be picked in each receptacle is determined before the receptacle enters the picking station (FIG. 17B; “vision data is processed” 332; “pick list is populated” 338, [0050]; “pick item” 348, [0052]).
Regarding claim 14, modified O’brien teaches of all limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, additionally, teaches of a transport vehicle (50) arranged to receive receptacles from above (see FIG. 1) and transport receptacles to picking station wherein the item manipulator is separate from the transport vehicle and operates independently ([0038] lines 21-34).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’brien, Prentice, Murphy, and Bastian, further in view of Yoshinaga et al. (US 20120296469A1), hereinafter Yoshinaga.
Regarding claim 20, modified O’brien teaches of all limitations in claim 16 as stated above.
However, modified O’brien does not teach of the method of picking comprising moving the camera to a position where a storage container is present such as to produce an image of the contents of a storage container.
Yoshinaga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a movable camera (28) capable of moving to position where a container (14) is present such as to produce an image of the workpiece (16) in the container (14, [0024] lines 2-3, Fig. 3).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the method of pick of modified O’brien with a movable camera of Yoshinaga to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination such that the camera can move between storage containers to produce images of the content within.
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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights