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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 (and 12) on page 2 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose g) sorting the different goods into groups of goods depending on the grip type, of which a first group of goods comprises goods of a first grip type of the grip types and a second group of goods comprises goods of a second grip type of the grip types. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Kalouche teaches that the gripping tool 248 may be selected based upon…the product type which is determined by the central computer (¶ 116). Examiner asserts that the product type serves as a sorted group of products and that the central computer must necessarily sort the products int each group for each gripper type in order to know which gripper to use for each type. Therefore, the cited art does appear to disclose g) sorting the different goods into groups of goods depending on the grip type, of which a first group of goods comprises goods of a first grip type of the grip types and a second group of goods comprises goods of a second grip type of the grip types.
On the same page of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues that the cited art does not disclose h) supplying the goods, separated into the groups of goods, to the robot so that firstly the goods of the first group of goods and subsequently the goods of the second group of goods are provided at the first position. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Kalouche teaches that each gripper can be selected for a product type (¶ 116). Kalouche further teaches that will direct robot 200 to pick items based upon the storage locations of the products and irrespective of the consumer who ordered the product and also to release or place the grasped item in a particular location (¶ 119). Finally, Kalouche teaches that product items within each bin (storage location) 10 may be identical. Taken together, Kalouche does spear to teach h) supplying the goods, separated into the groups of goods, to the robot so that firstly the goods of the first group of goods and subsequently the goods of the second group of goods are provided at the first position.
Claims 2-11 and 13-17 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 and do not cure the deficiency. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhawat et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0130936 A1, hereinafter Shekhawat) in view of Kalouche (US Pub No: 2021/0032032 A1, hereinafter Kalouche).
Regarding Claim 1:
Shekhawat discloses:
An operating method of a robot (2) for transferring different goods (9, 9a..9d) in a storage and picking system (1a..1d), comprising the steps. Paragraph [0059] describes an inventory storage systems 310A to 310N in which a group of mobile robots 316 can move the inventory items into storage.
a) determining grip types for the different goods (9, 9 9a..9d) in an electronic control system (14), wherein the grip type indicates with which gripper (7a..7c) corresponding to with which gripper type gripping of the respective good (9, 9a..9d) is possible. Paragraph [0036] describes an end effector 120 that can be a tool that can pick up an object in a number of ways; “pneumatic systems, hydraulic systems, or electromechanical systems, to pick, hold, grab, slide, throw, press, shrink, or apply other physical effects on different types of inventory items in the plurality of inventory storage system.” These types are based on an identification of the inventory items.
b) providing grippers (7a..7c) of different gripper types. Paragraph [0036] describes an end effector 120 that can be a tool that can pick up an object in a number of ways. This includes “robotic-grippers, such as electric grippers, vacuum-based grippers (such as suction cups), pneumatic grippers, magnetic grippers, and robotic fingers.”
c) selecting a gripper (7a..7c) from the different gripper types depending on the grip type of the good (9, 9a..9d) to be transferred by way of an electronic control system (14). Paragraph [0036] describes an end effector 120 that can be a tool that can pick up an object in a number of ways. This includes “robotic-grippers, such as electric grippers, vacuum-based grippers (such as suction cups), pneumatic grippers, magnetic grippers, and robotic fingers.” Paragraph [0056] describes a processor to control the device.
d) coupling the selected gripper (7a..7c) to a robot head (6) of the robot (2) or activating the selected gripper (7a..7c) on a robot head (6) of the robot (2). Paragraph [0078] and figure 4B describes a gripper arm 448 attached to the free end 444 of the arm potion. The arm is shown in the same position as designated in figure 1 of the applicant’s specification.
e) providing the goods (9, 9a..9d) at a first position (P1) in a region of action of the robot (2). Paragraph [0059] describes a put-plan generated by the server in which inventory items are picked up from one or more palettes and placed into storage bins.
and f) gripping the goods (9, 9a..9d) at the first position (P1) and depositing the goods (9, 9a..9d) at a second position (P2) in the region of action of the robot (2) with the selected gripper (7a..c) of the robot (2) c further comprising the steps. Paragraph [0059] describes a put-plan generated by the server in which inventory items are picked up from one or more palettes and placed into storage bins.
Shekhawat does not disclose sorting goods depending on the grip type and supplying goods, that are separated, to the robot.
Kalouche, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
- sorting the different goods (9, 9a..9d) into groups of goods (G1..G3) depending on the grip type, of which a first group of goods (G1) comprises goods (9, 9a..9d) of a first grip type of the grip types and a second group of goods (G2) comprises goods (9, 9a..9d) of a second grip type of the grip types. Paragraph [0116] describes selecting a gripping tool based upon the type of task or the product type by analyzing the image data or historical data. This is equivalent to the claim because the products are sorted and then the computer decides the grip type to use. Paragraph [0117] further describes switching gripping tools for a second group of goods.
– and supplying the goods (9, 9a..9d), separated into the groups of goods (G1..G3), to the robot (2) so that firstly the goods (9, 9a..9d) of the first group of goods (G1) and subsequently the goods (9, 9a..9d) of the second group of goods (G2) are provided at the first position (P1). Paragraph [0116] describes selecting a gripping tool based upon the type of task or the product type by analyzing the image data or historical data. This is equivalent to the claim because the products are sorted and then the computer decides the grip type to use. Paragraph [0117] further describes switching gripping tools for a second group of goods.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Kalouche to show sorting goods depending on the grip type and supplying goods, that are separated, to the robot.. One would have been motivated to do so to overcome a major barrier in developing robotic picking arms in that they are unable to grasp products of varying “sizes, shapes, weights, materials, surface textures, densities, mass distributions, stiffnesses and fragilities” ([0055] of Kalouche).
Regarding Claim 4:
Shekhawat discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein sequencing of the groups of goods (G1..G3) is carried out depending on the gripper type of a gripper (7a..7c) currently activated in or coupled to the robot (2), wherein goods (9, 9a..9d) of the first group of goods (G1..G3)have a grip type, which corresponds to the gripper type of the gripper (7a..7c) currently activated in or coupled to the robot (2). Paragraph [0036] describes an end effector 120 that can be a tool that can pick up an object in a number of ways; “pneumatic systems, hydraulic systems, or electromechanical systems, to pick, hold, grab, slide, throw, press, shrink, or apply other physical effects on different types of inventory items in the plurality of inventory storage system.” These types are based on an identification of the inventory items.
Regarding Claim 6:
Shekhawat discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein sorting the different goods (9, 9a..9d) into groups of goods (G1..G3) is carried out depending on the grip type by an automatic sorting device (19a, 19b), which, in turn, is connected to the electronic control system (14) in order to control the automatic sorting device (19a, 19b). Paragraph [0036] describes an end effector 120 that can be a tool that can pick up an object in a number of ways. This includes “robotic-grippers, such as electric grippers, vacuum-based grippers (such as suction cups), pneumatic grippers, magnetic grippers, and robotic fingers.” Paragraph [0056] describes a processor to control the device.
Claim(s) 2 – 3, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Kalouche and further in view of Wagner et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0218865 A1, hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding Claim 2:
Shekhawat and Kalouche teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat and Kalouche do not teach sorting the goods according to a good type in a type-by-type manner.
Wagner teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are sorted within a group of goods (G1..G3) according to a good type of the goods (9, 9a..9d) in a type-by-type manner. Paragraph [0035] describes outbound objects being organized such that articles are placed in a bin, shelf location, or cubby based on a given type.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show sorting the goods according to a good type in a type-by-type manner. One would have been motivated to do so to reliably automate the identification of objects ([0022] of Wagner).
Regarding Claim 3:
Shekhawat and Kalouche teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat and Kalouche do not teach arranging the goods according to a good type in a chaotic manner.
Wagner teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are arranged within a group of goods (G1..G3) according to a good type of the goods (9, 9a..9d) in a chaotic manner. Paragraph [0063] and figure 8 describes shuttle sorter which carries an object to one or two wings.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show arranging the goods according to a good type in a chaotic manner. One would have been motivated to do so to reliably automate the identification of objects ([0022] of Wagner).
Regarding Claim 5:
Shekhawat and Kalouche teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat and Kalouche do not teach sequencing the group of goods independent of the gripper type of the gripper currently activated/coupled to the robot.
Wagner teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein sequencing of the groups of goods (G1..G3) is carried out independently of the gripper type of the gripper (7a..7c) currently activated in or coupled to the robot (2). Paragraph [0046] describes a sequence of locations and orientations of the objects are choses to minimize the average or maximum amount of time that secondary scanning takes.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show sequencing the group of goods independent of the gripper type of the gripper currently activated/coupled to the robot. One would have been motivated to do so to minimize the average or maximum amount of time that secondary scanning takes ([0046] of Wagner).
Regarding Claim 11:
Shekhawat and Kalouche teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat and Kalouche do not teach a receiving platform in which the goods are stored.
Wagner teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the automatic sorting device (19a, 19b) comprises a driverless transport system with one or more autonomously movable transport vehicles (22a..22c), wherein the transport vehicles (22a..22c) each have a receiving platform (23a, 23b) or a suspension rod, upon which the goods (9, 9a..9d) are stored with or without containers (13, 13a..13d) or with or without a suspended bag (18, 18a..18d). Paragraph [0062] describes a second and third carriage that can receive objects from a first carriage 218.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show a receiving platform in which the goods are stored. One would have been motivated to do so to minimize the average or maximum amount of time that secondary scanning takes ([0046] of Wagner).
Claim(s) 7 – 10 and 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Kalouche and Reischl et al. (US Pub No: 2022/0063917 A1, hereinafter Reischl).
Regarding Claim 7:
Shekhawat and Kalouche teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat and Kalouche do not teach a conveyor system and hanging bags where the goods are stored in the hanging bags.
Reischl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the automatic sorting device (19a, 19b) comprises an overhead conveyor system and hanging bags (18, 18a..18d), wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are stored in the hanging bags (18, 18a..18d). Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Reischl to show a conveyor system and hanging bags where the goods are stored in the hanging bags. One would have been motivated to do so to maximize the volume of the storage space ([0002] of Reischl).
Regarding Claim 8:
Reischl teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein only a single good (9, 9a..9d) is stored in each hanging bag (18, 18a..18d). Paragraph [0072] describes a single article 4 is received in the article container 2.
Regarding Claim 9:
Reischl teaches:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the automatic sorting device (19a, 19b) comprises a container conveyor system and containers (13, 13a..13d), wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are stored in the containers. Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Regarding Claim 10:
Reischl teaches:
The method according to claim 9, wherein only goods (9, 9a..9d) of a single grip are stored in each container (13, 13a..13d). Paragraph [0072] describes a single article 4 being in an article container 2. This is equivalent to the claim because one article can only be picked up by a single grip.
Regarding Claim 12:
Reischl teaches:
a conveyor system (10a, 16), which is configured to transport goods (9, 9a..9d) to a first position (P1) in a region of action of the robot (2). Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Reischl to show a conveyor system and hanging bags where the goods are stored in the hanging bags. One would have been motivated to do so to maximize the volume of the storage space ([0002] of Reischl).
Kalouche and Reischl teach:
the conveyor system (10a, 16) is further configured to supply the goods (9, 9a..9d), separated into groups of goods (G1..G3), to the robot (2), wherein firstly the goods (9, 9a..9d) of a first group of goods (G1) and subsequently the goods (9, 9a..9d) of a second group of goods (G2) are provided at the first position (P1), wherein the first group of goods (G1) comprises goods (9, 9a..9d) of a first grip type of the grip types and the second group of goods (G2) comprises goods (9, 9a..9d) of a second grip type of the grip types. Paragraph [0072] of Reischl and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles. Paragraph [0116] describes selecting a gripping tool based upon the type of task or the product type by analyzing the image data or historical data. This is equivalent to the claim because the products are sorted and then the computer decides the grip type to use. Paragraph [0117] further describes switching gripping tools for a second group of goods.
The rest of claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 13:
Shekhawat discloses:
The storage and picking system according to claim 12, comprising an automatic sorting device (19a, 19b) connected to the conveyor system (10a, 16) by conveying means or comprising an automatic sorting device (19a, 19b) comprising the conveyor system (10a, 16), wherein the sorting device (19a, 19b) is connected to the electronic control system (14) in a controllable manner and is controlled by the control system (14) in such a way that the different goods (9, 9a..9d) are sorted into groups of goods (G1 ..G3) depending on the grip type. Paragraph [0080] and figures 5A of Shekhawat describes a queuing station 502 that includes a defined queue in regions 506A – 506N. Each grid is associated with a physical space in the warehouse. The robot manipulator 514 is installed for executing of the pick operation on different inventory items. Paragraph [0064] of Shekhawat describes sorting the goods.
Regarding Claim 14:
Reischl teaches:
The storage and picking system according to claim 13, wherein the automatic sorting device (1 9a) comprises an overhead conveyor system and hanging bags (18, 18a..18d), wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are stored in the hanging bags (18, 18a..18d). Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Regarding Claim 15:
Reischl teaches:
The storage and picking system according to claim 13, wherein the automatic sorting device (1 9a) comprises a container conveyor system and containers (13, 13a..13d), wherein the goods (9, 9a..9d) are stored in the containers (13, 13a..13d). Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Regarding Claim 16:
Reischl teaches:
The storage and picking system according to claim 14, wherein: the conveyor system comprises an overhead conveyor system for transporting the hanging bags (18, 18a, 18d) from the automatic sorting device (19a) to the first position (P1) or is formed by such an overhead conveyor system, or - the conveyor system comprises a container conveyor system for transporting the containers from the automatic sorting device (1 9a) to the first position (P1) or is formed by such a container conveyor system. Paragraph [0072] and figure 1 describes an overhead convey system with a transport bag and/or hanging bag to store articles.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Kalouche and Reischl and further in view of Wagner et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0218865 A1, hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding Claim 17:
Shekhawat, Kalouche and Reischl teach the above limitations in claim 1. Shekhawat, Kalouche and Reischl does not disclose a receiving platform in which the goods are stored.
Wagner teaches:
The storage and picking system according to claim 13, wherein the automatic sorting device (1 9b) comprises a driverless transport system with one or more autonomously movable transport vehicles (22a. .22c), wherein the transport vehicles (22a. .22c) each have a receiving platform (23a, 23b) or a suspension rod, upon which the goods (9, 9a. .9d) can be stored with or without containers (13, 13a..13d) or with or without a hanging bag (18, 18a..18d). Paragraph [0062] describes a second and third carriage that can receive objects from a first carriage 218.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shekhawat to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to show a receiving platform in which the goods are stored. One would have been motivated to do so to minimize the average or maximum amount of time that secondary scanning takes ([0046] of Wagner).
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 BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 PM.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights