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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This application is responsive to Applicant’s claims field 08/06/2026.
Claims 42-58, 60, and 62-63 are currently pending.
Claims 62-63 are newly added.
Claims 42-58 and 60 have been amended.
Claims 59 and 61 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 57-58, 60 and 63 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Regarding claims 57-58, the claims are distinct from the original invention since they recite a first and second track which are parallel to each other, wherein the system comprises a pushing device that pushes transport boxes between the two parallel tracks. Such an element is not seen in originally filed claims 42-56 and 60.
Regarding claims 60 and 63, the claims are distinct from the original invention since they recite transport boxes comprising defined object receiving locations. Such an element is not seen in originally filed claims 42-56 and 60.
Furthermore, claims 42-56 and 60 recite objects being placed onto defined depositing locations on the conveyor belt such that the objects which belong to exactly one work order are located next to each other on the conveyor belt, an element not seen in claims 57-58 or 60 and 63.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 57-58 and 60-63 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 42-46, 48-51, and 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee et al. (WIPO Document No. WO 0169552 A1; hereinafter "Rhee") in view of Vliet et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150073587; hereinafter "Vliet") further in view of Lindqvist et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5271703; hereinafter "Lindqvist").
As per claim 42, Rhee teaches:
A system configured to transport and store objects, comprising:
Rhee teaches a system and method for automatic picking and vending of products according to a customer order. (Rhee: abstract)
a plurality of storage shelves,
Rhee teaches a plurality of storage shelves 205. (Rhee: page 6 lines 1-8, Fig. 2)
at least one storage inlet,
Rhee teaches a storage inlet in the form of openings within the transport rack for stage. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2)
at least one storage outlet, and
Rhee teaches a storage outlet 207b at the end of each conveyor underneath the shelves. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2)
at least one storage shelf handling device,
Rhee teaches a handling device in the form of driving parts of a display column which extract goods from the column. (Rhee: page 12 lines 21-24, page 7 lines 7-18)
at least one transport box handling device,
Rhee teaches transport box handling devices in the form of an automatic packaging system. (Rhee: page 10 lines 3-15, Fig. 5)
at least one collecting belt which extends along the storage shelves and opens into the storage outlet,
Rhee teaches that a collecting belt in the form of a transport rack 207 which runs under the shelves and into the outlet. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2)
With respect to the following limitation:
at least one transport track which extends along the storage outlet and is configured to move transport boxes,
Rhee teaches a transport rack 209 which extends along the outlet and is configured to move transport boxes. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2, 5) Rhee, however, does not appear to explicitly teach a track which moves transport boxes for packaging the items.
Vliet, however, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rhee or by Vliet. Substituting the automated boxing system of Vliet for the automated bagging system of Rhee does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rhee. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Vliet with the teachings of Rhee since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the at least one storage shelf handling device is configured to transfer objects which belong to exactly one defined work order from the storage shelves onto defined depositing locations on the conveyor belt such that the objects which belong to exactly one defined work order are located next to each other on the conveyor belt,
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Rhee, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the objects are necessarily located next to one another.
Lindqvist, however, teaches that objects for a single order may be deposited into a single order space 37, 35, 39, on a belt for that respective order, and therefore teaches placing objects for a single order next to each other on the conveyor belt. (Lindqvist: col. 11 line 19 to col. 12 line 67, col. 14 lines 32-59, Figs. 3, 4a-b) Lindqvist teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet for the benefit of providing a system which dynamically assigns space on the gathering movable belt in such a manner so that a plurality of selected order requests may be serviced simultaneously. (Lindqvist: col. 2 lines 10-19) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lindqvist with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist further teaches:
wherein the transport box handling device is provided at the storage outlet and is configured to load a transport box with the objects located next to each other on the respective collecting belt, such that each transport box contains multiple objects which belong to exactly one defined work order.
Rhee teaches a transport rack 209 which extends along the outlet and is configured to move transport boxes. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2, 5) Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Rhee, however, appears to teach that the automated packaging comprises placing the objects into vinyl bags, rather than boxes. Vliet, however, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists.
As per claim 43, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one collecting belt is controlled so as to transport the objects which belong to a defined work order together to the respective storage outlet.
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15)
As per claim 44, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least two transport tracks are provided for the transport boxes.
Rhee teaches a first and second transport rack in the form of a first rack 1101 and a second rack 1105. (Rhee: page 13 lines 1-3, Fig. 11)
As per claim 45, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 44, as outlined above, and further teaches:
a pushing device configured to push the transport boxes between the at least two transport tracks.
Rhee further teaches that a rod 111b may raise itself up higher and push goods such that they move between the first transport track 1101 and the second track 1105. (Rhee: page 14 lines 23-27, page 15 lines 1-5, Fig. 11)
As per claim 46, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one transport track is configured in such a way that the loaded transport boxes can be transported out of the system.
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Vliet, as outlined above, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists.
As per claim 48, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one transport track under the at least one collecting belt.
Rhee teaches that a transport rack 209 running perpendicular to conveyors running parallel along storage shelves may be lower than a given conveyer on an upper level. (Rhee: page 11, lines 9-24, Fig. 7)
As per claim 49, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the collecting belt and storage shelves run parallel to one another and the at least one transport track runs transversely thereto.
Rhee teaches a transport rack 209 which extends along the outlet and is configured to move transport boxes and further teaches that the transport rack may be transverse to the collective belt and storage shelves, which may be parallel to each other (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2, 5)
As per claim 50, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least some of the objects are received in storage containers.
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Vliet, as outlined above, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists.
As per claim 51, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one reader is provided which is configured for reading a computer readable storage medium on at least one of a storage containers containing the objects, the transport boxes the objects, and packaging of the objects, in order to at least one of identify the objects and check the loading of a transport box desired for the work order.
Rhee further teaches that readers in the form of sensors may be used to ensure that the proper items are received from the collective belt. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2)
As per claim 62, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 50, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the storage shelf handling device is configured for transferring the storage containers containing the objects which belong to the exactly one defined work order from the storage shelves onto the defined depositing locations on the conveyor belt next to each other.
Rhee teaches a transport rack 209 which extends along the outlet and is configured to move transport boxes. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, Fig. 2, 5) Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Rhee, however, appears to teach that the automated packaging comprises placing the objects into vinyl bags, rather than boxes. Vliet, however, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists.
Claims 47 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist further in view of Takizawa et al. (European Patent No. EP 1273359 A1; hereinafter "Takizawa").
As per claim 47, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein a first transport track is provided for feeding empty transport boxes, and a second transport track is provided for loading the transport boxes with the objects.
Takizawa, however, teaches a product transport rack which comprises an inlet 601 for providing empty boxes, a second rack 601/602 for loading boxes, and a third rack 614 for transporting loaded boxes away from the transport rack. (Takizawa: Takizawa: paragraphs [0363-368], Fig. 64-65) Takizawa teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lindqvist for the benefit of improving work efficiency. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takizawa with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lindqvist to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 52, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 50, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein at least one return conveyor for storage containers is provided for returning empty storage containers to a packing station of the system for filling the storage containers with objects to be stored.
Takizawa, however, teaches a product transport rack which comprises an inlet 601 for providing empty boxes, a second rack 601/602 for loading boxes, and a third rack 614 for transporting loaded boxes away from the transport rack. (Takizawa: Takizawa: paragraphs [0363-368], Fig. 64-65) Takizawa teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lindqvist for the benefit of improving work efficiency. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takizawa with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lindqvist to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 53 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist further in view of Zheng, Yong (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220033123; hereinafter "Zheng").
As per claim 53, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the transport box handling device is configured for individually picking up the objects from the collecting belt and for depositing them in a defined manner at defined receiving locations in the transport box.
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Vliet, as outlined above, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists. Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the automated packaging machine picks items up and places them into the container.
Zheng, however, teaches that a robotic arm may be used to pick items up and place them into a box in an automated packaging procedure. (Zheng: paragraph [0143, 158]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, or by Zheng. Using the mechanical arm of Zheng to perform the automated packaging taught by Rhee in view of Vliet does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 55, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the transport box handling device is configured for picking up the objects from the collecting belt.
Rhee further teaches that the ordered goods may be transported from the storage track, onto the conveyor below, and onward for packaging. (Rhee: page 8 lines 8-26, page 9 lines 1-21, page 10 lines 1-15) Vliet, as outlined above, teaches that inventory items may be routed via conveyor belts from inventory areas 410 to an automated boxing module 426c, to an outlet out of the processing are 420. (Vliet: paragraphs [0017-18, 37-39, 42-43, 49-51], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Vliet persists. Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the automated packaging machine picks items up and places them into the container.
Zheng, however, teaches that a robotic arm may be used to pick items up and place them into a box in an automated packaging procedure. (Zheng: paragraph [0143, 158]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, or by Zheng. Using the mechanical arm of Zheng to perform the automated packaging taught by Rhee in view of Vliet does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist further in view of Riedl, GmbH (German Patent Document No. DE202016103890U1; hereinafter "Riedl").
As per claim 54, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one storage shelf handling device is configured for retrieving objects accommodated in a storage container from a storage shelf and storing them in the storage shelf.
Riedl, however, teaches that a picking apparatus may comprise gripping arms 212 which may allow the apparatus to grip items and move them to and from a storage location via a conveyor belt. (Riedl: paragraphs [0040-45], Figs. 2, 4) Riedl teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist for the benefit of providing a system which can enable rapid processing of orders and provide secure gripping of objects. (Riedl: paragraphs [0008, 40, 46]) Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Riedl with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist further in view of Amend, et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190270537; hereinafter "Amend").
As per claim 56, Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the transport box handling device is arranged above the collecting belt and above the transport track.
Amend, however, teaches a robot 12 which may be stationed above two separate conveyors and which may transfer items from one location to another. (Amend: paragraphs [0044-45], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, or by Amend. Using the robot 12 to place items in the packages in the automated packaging process described by Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Amend with the teachings of Rhee in view of Vliet further in view of Lundqvist, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights