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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Claims filed 03/24/2026.
Claims 1-41 are canceled.
Claims 42-61 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 42-45, 48-49, 51, and 53-61 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 42 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.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Response filed 03/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, via bare assertions without particularly pointing to any deficiencies in any given reference, that the limitations recited in claims 57 and 60 are not taught by the references of record. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that, as outlined below, these limitations are indeed taught. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,321,138 B1; hereinafter "Livesay") in view of Rhee et al. (WIPO Document No. WO 0169552 A1; hereinafter "Rhee") further in view of Riedl, GmbH (German Patent Document No. DE202016103890U1; hereinafter "Riedl").
As per claim 42, Livesay teaches:
A system configured for transporting and storing objects, comprising:
Livesay teaches an automated storage and retrieval system. (Livesay: abstract)
at least two storage devices comprising storage shelves,
Livesay teaches storage racks 15 and 17 which comprise shelves comprising storage locations 25. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 46-52, Fig. 1, 2)
at least one storage inlet,
Livesay teaches robotic input lanes 51, 53. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-23, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one storage outlet, and
Livesay teaches robotic output lanes 61, 63. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 31-43, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one handling device configured to store objects,
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein each storage device or the storage devices has or have at least one collecting belt which extends along the storage shelves and opens into the storage outlet,
Livesay teaches conveyors 103, 105 which may extend along the storage shelves. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the conveyors comprise belts.
Rhee, however, 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) Rhee teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Livesay for the benefit of helping non fragile goods drop safely onto a transport rack. 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 Rhee with the teachings of Livesay to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Furthermore, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Livesay, or by Rhee. Using belts as conveyors, as taught by Rhee does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Livesay. 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 Rhee with the teachings of Livesay, 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.
Livesay in view of Rhee further teaches:
wherein at least one transport track for transport boxes is provided and extends along the storage outlets,
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
With respect to the following limitation:
wherein a handling apparatus is provided and assigned to the storage outlets or is provided at each storage outlet and is configured for loading a transport box with the objects located by the at least one handling device on the respective collecting belt or on the collecting belts, such that each transport box finally contains multiple objects which belong to exactly one defined work order.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches baskets which are loaded with items and labeled, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the baskets correspond to items from a single work order.
Riedl, however, teaches that a container may be loaded with items collected from disparate locations into a single container for a single work order. (Riedl: paragraphs [0045], Figs. 2, 4) Riedl teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Livesay in view of Rhee 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 Livesay in view of Rhee to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 43, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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.
Livesay teaches conveyors 103, 105 which may extend along the storage shelves. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Riedl, as outlined above, teaches that a container may be loaded with items collected from disparate locations into a single container for a single work order. (Riedl: paragraphs [0045], Figs. 2, 4) The motivation to combine Riedl persists.
As per claim 44, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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.
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets and which may comprise multiple transport racks, 73, 75, 109. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 45, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least two transport tracks or the system is or are configured in such a way that transport boxes can change or be pushed between the at least two transport tracks.
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets and which may comprise multiple transport racks, 73, 75, 109 where boxes may be transferred between each. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 46, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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.
Livesay teaches that loaded transport boxes may exit the system after reaching station 77, 79 via transport racks and taken out the loading docks 9. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 36-46, Fig. 1)
As per claim 48, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one transport track or all transport tracks runs or run under the at least one collecting belt.
Rhee, however, 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) Rhee teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Livesay for the benefit of helping non fragile goods drop safely onto a transport rack. 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 Rhee with the teachings of Livesay to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Furthermore, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Livesay, or by Rhee. Positioning the transport rack below the conveyor, as taught by Rhee does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Livesay. 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 Rhee with the teachings of Livesay, 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 49, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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 or perpendicularly thereto.
Livesay teaches that the storage racks 15, 17 may run parallel to the conveyers 105, 103 and the transport track 59 may run perpendicular thereto. (Livesay: Fig. 1)
As per claim 50, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least some of the objects to be stored are received or receivable in storage containers.
Livesay further teaches baskets used to store objects. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 51, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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 a storage container or a transport box and/or an identification located on the storable object or its packaging, in order to identify the objects or to be able to ensure or check the loading of a transport box desired for the work order.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches that the baskets may comprise an identifier which may be read by a reader, wherein the item may be rejected if the reader indicates that the identifier for the basket is not proper. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 61-67, col. 5 lines 1-50). Riedl, as outlined above, teaches that a container may be loaded with items collected from disparate locations into a single container for a single work order. (Riedl: paragraphs [0045], Figs. 2, 4) The motivation to combine Riedl persists.
As per claim 53, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the handling device is configured for individually picking up the objects from the respective collecting belt and/or storage container deposited thereon and for depositing them in a defined manner at defined receiving locations in the transport box.
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay, however, does not appear to teach that the stacker retriever "grips" objects, but appears to teach that it lifts them. 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) The motivation to combine Riedl persists.
As per claim 54, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one handling device is configured for retrieving objects or objects accommodated in a storage container from a storage shelf and storing them in the storage shelf.
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay, however, does not appear to teach that the stacker retriever "grips" objects, but appears to teach that it lifts them. 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) The motivation to combine Riedl persists.
As per claim 55, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the handling apparatus is configured for picking up the objects from the respective collecting bel and/or storage container.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
Claims 47 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl further in view of Takizawa et al. (European Patent No. EP 1273359 A1; hereinafter "Takizawa").
As per claim 47, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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, a second transport track is provided for loading the transport boxes with the objects, and the second or a third transport track is provided for conveying away and/or temporarily storing loaded transport boxes.
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 Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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 Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 52, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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 Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl 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 Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl further in view of Amend, et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190270537; hereinafter "Amend").
As per claim 56, Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 42, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the handling apparatus is arranged above an associated collecting belt and above an associated transport track.
Amend, however, teaches a robot 12 which may be stationed above two separate conveyors and which may transfer items from one conveyor to another. (Amend: paragraphs [0044-45], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl, or by Amend. Substituting the robot 12 for the robot described by Amend does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl. 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 Livesay in view of Rhee further in view of Riedl, 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.
Claims 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay in view of Riedl further in view of Takizawa.
As per claim 57, Livesay teaches:
A system configured for transporting and storing objects, comprising:
Livesay teaches an automated storage and retrieval system. (Livesay: abstract)
at least two storage devices comprising storage shelves,
Livesay teaches storage racks 15 and 17 which comprise shelves comprising storage locations 25. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 46-52, Fig. 1, 2)
at least one storage inlet,
Livesay teaches robotic input lanes 51, 53. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-23, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one storage outlet, and
Livesay teaches robotic output lanes 61, 63. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 31-43, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one handling device,
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein each storage device or the storage devices has or have at least one collecting conveyor which extends along the storage shelves and opens into the storage outlet,
Livesay teaches conveyors 103, 105 which may extend along the storage shelves. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein the at least one handling device is configured to put objects from the storage shelves on the at least one collecting conveyor,
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein at least one transport track for transport boxes is provided and extends along the storage outlets,
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
With respect to the following limitation:
wherein a handling apparatus is provided and assigned to the storage outlets or is provided at each storage outlet and is configured for loading a transport box with the objects located on the respective collecting conveyor or on the collecting conveyors, such that each transport box finally contains objects to be stored or stored which belong to exactly one defined work order,
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches baskets which are loaded with items and labeled, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the baskets correspond to items from a single work order, or that the conveyors comprise belts.
Riedl, however, teaches that a container may be loaded with items collected from disparate locations into a single container for a single work order. (Riedl: paragraphs [0045], Figs. 2, 4) Riedl teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Livesay 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 Livesay to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Livesay in view of Riedl does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein a first transport track is provided for feeding empty transport boxes, a second transport track is provided for loading the transport boxes with the objects, and the second or a third transport track is provided for conveying away and/or temporarily storing loaded transport boxes,
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 Livesay in view of Riedl 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 Livesay in view of Riedl to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Livesay in view of Riedl further in view of Takizawa further teaches:
wherein the system is configured such that the transport boxes can change or be pushed between the at least two transport racks.
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets and which may comprise multiple transport racks, 73, 75, 109 where boxes may be transferred between each. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 58, Livesay in view of Riedl further in view of Takizawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 57, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the handling apparatus is configured for individually picking up the objects from the respective collecting belt, deposit location and/or storage container and for depositing them in a defined manner and/or individually in the transport box.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 59, Livesay in view of Riedl further in view of Takizawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 58, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the handling device is configured for gripping objects or storage containers with the objects from its respective storage location or from the respective storage shelf and for the defined depositing and/or positioning of objects or storage containers with the objects on the collecting belt.
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay, however, does not appear to teach that the stacker retriever "grips" objects, but appears to teach that it lifts them. 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) The motivation to combine Riedl persists.
Claims 60-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livesay in view of Riedl.
As per claim 60, Livesay teaches:
A system configured for transporting and storing objects, comprising:
Livesay teaches an automated storage and retrieval system. (Livesay: abstract)
at least two storage devices comprising storage shelves,
Livesay teaches storage racks 15 and 17 which comprise shelves comprising storage locations 25. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 46-52, Fig. 1, 2)
at least one storage inlet,
Livesay teaches robotic input lanes 51, 53. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-23, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one storage outlet, and
Livesay teaches robotic output lanes 61, 63. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 31-43, Figs. 1, 2)
at least one handling device,
Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein each storage device or the storage devices has or have at least one collecting conveyor which extends along the storage shelves and opens into the storage outlet,
Livesay teaches conveyors 103, 105 which may extend along the storage shelves. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein at least one transport track for transport boxes is provided and extends along the storage outlets,
Livesay teaches an output conveyor 59 which extends along the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 25-30, Figs. 1, 2)
wherein the at least one handling device is configured for transferring objects, or storage containers with the objects, from its respective storage location or from the respective storage shelf to the at least one collecting conveyor,
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches a handling device in the form of a stacker retriever 11 which may retrieve boxes and place them on the conveyors or which may place boxes into storage from the conveyors. (Livesay: col. 4 lines 47-52, col. 5 lines 10-43, 54-64; col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
With respect to the following limitation:
wherein a handling apparatus is provided and assigned to the storage outlets or is provided at each storage outlet and is configured for loading a transport box with the objects located on the respective collecting conveyor or on the collecting conveyors, such that each transport box finally contains objects to be stored or stored which belong to exactly one defined work order,
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2) Livesay teaches baskets which are loaded with items and labeled, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the baskets correspond to items from a single work order, or that the conveyors comprise belts.
Riedl, however, teaches that a container may be loaded with items collected from disparate locations into a single container for a single work order. (Riedl: paragraphs [0045], Figs. 2, 4) Riedl teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Livesay 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 Livesay to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Livesay in view of Riedl further teaches:
wherein the handling apparatus is configured for individually picking up the objects from the respective collecting belt, deposit location and/or storage container and for depositing them in a defined manner at the receiving locations in the transport box.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
As per claim 61, Livesay in view of Riedl teaches all of the limitations of claim 60, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the system or the handling apparatus is configured for individually transferring, changing and/or pushing the transport boxes from one transport track to another.
Livesay further teaches robotics which may engage the loaded baskets and move them onto the robotic lanes at the storage outlets. (Livesay: col. 5 lines 10-43 50-67, col. 6 lines 1-15, Figs. 1, 2)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 3628
Prosecution Insights