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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Relative to claim 1, line 10, it appears “so as said” should be “so said”.
Relative to claim 1, line 12, Examiner recommends changing “moving means are” should be “moving means is” since it appears that there is only one “means”. This occurs in several places in the claims.
Relative to claim 3-4, line 2, it appears “comprise” should be “comprises”.
Relative to claim 4, it appears “the” should be before “actuator” in line 2.
Relative to claim 4, line 2, it appears “a” should be before “pneumatic”. In line 4, Applicant should replace “the” with “a”. In line 2, it appears “comprise” should be “comprises”.
Relative to claims 14-15, line 2 “station” should be “stations”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5, 7 , 11 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Relative to claim 5, line 1, the claim depends from claims 3 and 4, which is unclear. It is not clear as to which claim claim 5 should depend from. Claims may only depend from one claim.
Relative to claim 5, “all of said solenoid valve” is unclear. It is not clear whether the claim includes more than one solenoid valves. Claim 4 recites “a” solenoid valve.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Applicant needs to clearly specify the ranges. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Relative to claim 11, the limitation "the predefined number of shakings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittrock (DE 11-2017-005-853 B4) also published as (Garrett et al, US PG. Pub. 2018/0141754). Relative to claims 1-5, Wittrock discloses:
claim 1) A system (Fig. 2) for arranging items in containers comprising a processing station (100) for filling removable containers (106)(Fig. 1), each of said processing station (100) is able to house a single of said removable containers (106)(Fig. 2) and comprises:
a movable tray (206)(Fig. 2), able to support a respective of said removable containers (106e)(Fig. 2)(see English translation of the specification, Page 12, Para. 1);
moving means of said movable tray (206) with respect to said processing station (100)(Page 15, Para. 2, of English Translation of the specification, paragraph beginning with “In some examples, system 100 may include one or more additional components..”, moving means may comprise actuators, 306, to modify the position of the platform relative to the ramp);
a conveyor (128, 108)(Fig. 2), provided with an entry portion (see left side of conveyor near “G” where items are arrive on the conveyor) and with an exit portion of said items (exit portion of conveyor is on the right side, where items are discharged along ramp 130 towards container 106),
said conveyor (128) is arranged at a distance from said movable tray (106e) so that said exit portion remains above the opening of a respective of said removable containers (see position of conveyor 128 above container 106 where items move from the conveyor and into the container)(Fig. 2);
said moving means are able to operate a shaking of said movable tray (206) at least along opposite directions of a predefined axis of shaking to arrange said items in said removable container (106e) in a homogeneous way (actuators 306 are able to vibrate platform in a manner and inherently in opposite directions so that items may settle in the container 106a; Page 15, Para. 2);
claim 2) said processing station (100) comprises a fixed seat (132) operatively connected to said movable tray (206)(Fig. 2),
said moving means (306) comprises shaking guides for said movable tray (206), and said shaking guides are secured to said fixed seat (132) and interposed between said fixed seat (132) and said movable tray (206) so that said moving means (306) are able to operate said shaking of said movable tray (206) along opposite directions of said predefined axis of shaking defined by, or parallel to, said shaking guides with respect to said fixed seat (132)(the carrier is equipped with the actuators that cause the platform to vibrate, the carrier 132 inherently includes a shaking guide, although not shown, to allow the platform to shake or vibrate in opposite directions with respect to the carrier 132; Page 15, Para. 2);
claim 3) said moving means comprises an actuator (306) operatively connected to said movable tray (206) to operate said shaking along opposite directions of said predefined axis of shaking defined by the piston rod of said actuator (306)(Page 15, Para. 2, the actuator may include a pneumatic actuator, which inherently includes a piston rod);
claim 4) the actuator (306) is of a pneumatic type, and said moving means comprises a solenoid valve operatively connected to said actuator (306) to operate said cylinder (see actuators may be pneumatic and may include one or more solenoids, Page 15, Para. 2 which begins with “In some examples”, system 100 may include one or more additional components); and
claim 5) the system (Fig. 2) comprises a single pneumatic circuit operatively connected to said solenoid valve (Page 15, Para. 2).
Relative to claim 1, Wittrock does not expressly disclose:
the system comprises more than one processing station. Wittrock can be modified to include a plurality of processing stations as a matter of design choice, since providing a plurality of processing stations is a mere duplication of parts. Moreover, it is well known to provide more than one processing station to sort items in a fulfillment center to increase throughout. Moreover, providing more than one processing station has no patentable significance and would have no unexpected result. See MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B): Duplication of Parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Wittrock to include a plurality of processing stations as an obvious matter of design choice as a mere duplication of parts having no patentable significance.
Relative to claims 4-5, Wittrock, modified as above, does not expressly disclose: the moving means is a pneumatic solenoid valve operatively connected to said actuator to operate a double-acting of said cylinder; or the system comprises a single pneumatic circuit operatively connected to all of said solenoid valves.
Wittrock teaches: the moving means is a pneumatic solenoid valve operatively connected to said actuator as a matter of design choice since the device includes solenoids and pneumatic actuators to actuate the movement of the platform 206 (See Page 15, Para. 2).
Using a pneumatic solenoid valve to operate a double-acting of said cylinder is an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference since double-acting cylinders are well-known types of pneumatic cylinders used with pneumatic actuators and are capable of exerting force in both directions. Double-acting cylinders allow for more efficient operation in applications requiring movement in both directions, such as in vibratory systems, and are commonly used in automation systems.
Moreover, the system can be modified so that the pneumatic actuator(s) comprise a single pneumatic circuit operatively connected to all of said solenoid valves, as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference, since single pneumatic circuits operate quickly, are simple in design, and are cost-effective. It is well-known in the art of automation systems to employ single pneumatic circuits where controlled motion is required. See MPEP §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Wittrock with the pneumatic solenoid valve connected to operate a double-acting of said cylinder; and the single pneumatic circuit described above, as an obvious matter of design choice since double-acting cylinders are well-known types of pneumatic cylinders used in automation systems. Moreover, employing single pneumatic circuits are well-known in the art of automation systems where controlled motion is required and are cost-effective.
Claim(s) 6 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittrock in view of Dudek (CN 110255055 B). Relative to claim 6, Wittrock discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: the conveyor is of an idle roller type.
Dudek teaches: the conveyor is of an idle roller type (Page 2, Para. 5 of the English translation of the specification, beginning with “the individual and selective control of the delivery action”) for the purpose of providing a system for moving items along a roller conveyor that can rapidly change of the arrangement of the roller conveyor to allow for efficient delivery of small and large quantities of goods (Page 3, Para. 1, beginning with “The overall requirements and objectives”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wittrock so that the conveyor is of a idle roller type, as taught in Dudek for the purpose of providing a system for moving items along a roller conveyor that can rapidly change of the arrangement of the roller conveyor to allow for efficient delivery of small and large quantities of goods.
Claim(s) 7 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittrock in view of Felder Hans (EP 0092848 A2). Relative to claim 7, Wittrock discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: said conveyor has an inclination with respect to a floor plane comprised between 5° and 25°.
Felder teaches: said conveyor has an inclination with respect to a floor plane (See Fig. 1, Ref. 4), for the purpose of providing a sorting device for sorting goods that enables high sorting performance and is simple in design (Page. 2, Para. 1, sentence beginning with “The object of the invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Wittrock so that the conveyor has an inclination with respect to a floor plane, as taught in Felder, for the purpose of providing a sorting device for sorting goods that enables high sorting performance and is simple in design.
Relative to claim 7, Wittrock in view of Felder does not expressly disclose: the inclination of the conveyor with respect to a floor plane is between 5° and 25°.
Wittrock in view of Felder can be modified so that the inclination of the conveyor with respect to a floor plane is between 5° and 25° as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference. In Fig. 1, the conveyors 4 appear to have an angle of inclination with respect to a floor plane between 5° and 25° (See English translation of the Specification, Page 2, Para. 9, paragraph beginning with “Secondary tracks”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Wittrock in view of Felder so that the inclination of the conveyor with respect to a floor plane is between 5° and 25° as an obvious matter of design choice since the figures appear to show the inclination between 5° and 25 since the conveyors 4 appear to have an angle of inclination with respect to a floor plane between 5° and 25° (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8-15 (as understood by the Examiner) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittrock in view of Navarria et al (US Patent No. 11,396,432). Relative to claims 8-15, Wittrock discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
8) each of said processing stations comprises one or more presence sensors of said items, and wherein said moving means are operated when said presence sensors detect said items;
9) said presence sensor is arranged at said exit portion of said conveyor, and wherein said moving means are operated when said presence sensors detect said items at said exit portion.
10) said moving means are able to operate said shaking of said movable tray with a predefined shaking speed;
11) said predefined shaking speed is set with a single value according to the predefined number of shakings or is set different with a different value for one or more of said shakings for each of said items;
12) said moving means are able to operate said shaking of said movable tray for a predefined number of shakings for each of said items;
13) said predefined number of shakings is comprised between two and ten, preferably between three and nine, more preferably is equal to six;
14) said plurality of processing station (11) are arranged in succession along a column; and
15) said plurality of processing station (11) are arranged in succession along a row by alternating the column.
Navarria teaches:
8) each of said processing stations comprises one or more presence sensors of said items, and said moving means are operated when said presence sensors detect said items (each processing station in the system 610 may include a chute of the plurality of chutes, the shuttle that moves items into the chute, and the reciprocating tray with containers that receive the items from the corresponding chute (See Ref. 610, Fig. 7);
claim 9) the presence sensor is arranged at the exit portion of said conveyor, and the moving means are operated when said presence sensors detect said items at said exit portion (see (Col. 10, lines 37-38; also the presence sensors may be arranged at adjacent the chute and/or container, the chute may represent the conveyor from which the items are released, Col. 11, lines 25-32);
10) said moving means are able to operate said shaking of said movable tray with a predefined shaking speed (Col. 12, lines 49-65; the movable platform may push and pull at a speed depending on the dimensions of the items, see “the delay may be increased”);
11) said predefined shaking speed is set with a single value according to the predefined number of shakings or is set different with a different value for one or more of said shakings for each of said items (Col. 10, lines 41-45; Col. 10, lines 59-60, tray may be actuated once, twice, three times, of another number of times…);
12) said moving means are able to operate said shaking of said movable tray for a predefined number of shakings for each of said items (Col. 10, lines 41-45; Col. 10, lines 59-60);
13) said predefined number of shakings is comprised between two and ten, preferably between three and nine, more preferably is equal to six (Col. 10, lines 41-45; Col. 10, lines 59-60);
14) said plurality of processing stations are arranged in succession along a column (See Ref. 610, Fig. 4 and 6); and
15) said plurality of processing station (11) are arranged in succession along a row by alternating the column (See Ref. 610 in Fig. 6).
Navarria teaches the: processing stations comprises one or more presence sensors; the moving means is operated when the presence sensors detect the items; operate said shaking of said movable tray with a predefined shaking speed or for a predefined number of shakings for each of said items; the plurality of processing stations are arranged in succession along a column, and in succession along a row by alternating the column, for the purpose of providing an automated container shaking system for use in an order fulfillment center that encourages more efficient operations, reduces manual labor, and improves the speed of processing orders (Col. 1, lines 5-20; Col. 3, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Wittrock so that the processing stations comprise presence sensors for detecting the items; shaking the movable tray with a predefined shaking speed or for a predefined number of shakings, and plurality of processing stations are arranged in succession mentioned above, as taught in Navarria, for the purpose of providing an automated container shaking system for use in an order fulfillment center that encourages more efficient operations, reduces manual labor, and improves the speed of processing orders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655