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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dupree, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0288787 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Dupree teaches a block storage arrangement comprising: multiple container receiving chambers (¶ 0029); at least one container (¶ 0082—"items"; see also Fig. 4—430); at least one loading vehicle, which is movable in a loading direction to the multiple container receiving chambers, includes a container receiver for the at least one container (¶ 0043; Fig. 4—415); and wherein, upstream of the multiple container receiving chambers in the loading direction, a container loading center of gravity of the at least one container is determined (¶ 0067).
As per claim 3, Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches the determination of the center of gravity of the at least one container includes a determination of a mass of the at least one container (¶ 0067—examiner notes that in the loading context of the reference that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the terms mass and weight can be used interchangeably).
As per claim 4, Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches one of the multiple container receiving chambers is selected for loading with the at least one container as a function of the determined container loading center of gravity (¶¶ 0060, 81-82).
As per claim 5, Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches a device for determining the container loading center of gravity, which is arranged upstream of the container receiving chambers in the loading direction (¶¶ 0067, 82).
As per claim 7, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container loading center of gravity is configured to determine a mass of the at least one container (¶ 0067).
As per claim 8, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches a control device that is coupled to the device for determining a container loading center of gravity, the control device being configured to select a container receiving chamber as a function of an output signal from the device for determining a container loading center of gravity (¶¶ 0067, 81-82).
As per claim 11, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container loading center of gravity is arranged one of in a work or transfer station or on the loading vehicle (¶ 0067).
As per claim 12, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container loading center of gravity comprises an optical recording device (¶¶ 0046, 54, 129).
As per claim 13, Dupree teaches a method for operating a block storage arrangement having multiple container receiving chambers and at least one loading vehicle, which is moved in a loading direction to the container receiving chambers (Fig. 4), comprising: transporting at least one container into one of the multiple container receiving chambers (¶¶ 0029, 38); and determining a container loading center of gravity of the at least one container before the at least one container is stored in the one container receiving chamber (¶¶ 0067, 82).
As per claim 14, Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the one container receiving chamber is selected as a function of the determined container loading center of gravity (¶¶ 0060, 81-82).
As per claim 15, Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches before each at least one container is transported to the multiple receiving chambers, the container loading center of gravity of each at least one container is determined (¶¶ 0067, 82).
As per claim 16, Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the determining of the container loading center of gravity comprises determining a weight force at multiple different positions on the at least one container (¶¶ 0046, 54).
As per claim 17, Dupree teaches claim 16 as above. Dupree further teaches the determining of the weight force at multiple positions on the at least one container, a total mass of the at least one container is determined (¶¶ 0046, 67).
As per claim 18, Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the container loading center of gravity of the at least one container load is determined optically (¶¶ 0046, 54, 129).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupree, et al. in view of Turpin, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0016543 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 2, Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree does not explicitly teach the determination of the center of gravity of the at least one container includes determining a loading eccentricity of the at least one container; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Turpin—namely, to better model stack stability for loading plans. This comports with the goals of Dupree (see ¶¶ 0060-61, 81-82, 90-91). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transporting and loading items. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 6, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree does not explicitly teach the device for determining a container loading center of gravity is configured to determine a loading eccentricity of the at least one container; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 2 above.
As per claim 19, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree does not explicitly teach determining an eccentricity of the container loading center of gravity of the at least one container; and selecting the one container receiving chamber as a function of the determined eccentricity; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 2 above.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupree, et al. in view of Ranjan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0197900 (Citation A of the IDS filed 11/2/2023).
As per claim 9, Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container loading center of gravity comprises at weighing devices (¶¶ 0046, 67). Dupree does not explicitly teach at least three weighing devices arranged at a distance from one another; which is taught by Ranjan (¶ 0046). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Ranjan—namely, to more accurately measure weight and weight distribution. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transporting and loading items. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 10, Dupree in view of Ranjan teaches claim 9 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container loading center of gravity comprises weighing devices(¶¶ 0046, 67). Dupree does not explicitly teach four weighing devices, which are assigned to corners of the at least one container; which is taught by Ranjan (¶ 0046) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sakali, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0080839 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to a block storage arrangement.
Lert, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0063910 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to a block storage arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights