DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann (US Patent No. 9,714,145).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Lehmann discloses the limitations of independent Claim 1 as follows:
A pallet loading system, comprising:
a processor; and (See Col. 29, Lines 16-25 and 43-48; Fig. 12; Ref. Numeral 1210A(processor)
memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (See Col. 29, Line 56-Col. 30, Line 11; Fig. 12; Ref. Numeral 1220(memory)
receive package loading data, (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
the package loading data including characteristics of a package to be placed on a pallet and (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
characteristics of a loading operator; (See Col. 12, Lines 30-42; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator)
determine, based on the characteristics of the package and the characteristics of the loading operator, a placement location on the pallet for the package; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "characteristics"(loading data), "desired position"(placement location)
display a visual marking in relation to the placement location; and (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
output an instruction to the loading operator to place the package at the placement location based on the visual marking. (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; and Col. 14, Lines 7-15; Figs. 3, 4; 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
With respect to Claim 2, which depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 2, Lehmann discloses as follows:
The pallet loading system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
detect the package at the placement location or a loading operator package pick-up location; and (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), "correct position"(placement location)
perform an integrity check of the package using a plurality of sensors located in a pallet loading area. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912)
With respect to Claim 3, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 2 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 3, Lehmann discloses as follows:
The pallet loading system of claim 2, wherein, responsive to failure of the integrity check of the package, the instructions cause the processor to:
display an error; and (See Col. 15, Lines13-19; Col. 24, Lines 30-44; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator), 312(display); Step 914
output a second instruction to the loading operator that includes a mitigation technique to correct the error. (See Col. 15, Lines13-19; Col. 24, Lines 30-44; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator); Step 914
With respect to Claim 4, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 2 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 4, Lehmann discloses as follows:
The pallet loading system of claim 2, wherein responsive to success of the integrity check of the package, the instructions cause the processor to:
receive one or more inputs with information about a second package to be placed on a pallet; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
determine, based on the information about the second package and the information about the loading operator, a second placement location on the pallet for the second package; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), , "characteristics"(loading data), "desired position"(placement location)
display a second visual marking at the second placement location for the second package; (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
instruct the loading operator to place the second package at the second placement location based on the second visual marking; (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; and Col. 14, Lines 7-15; Figs. 3, 4; 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
detect the package at the second placement location or the loading operator package pick-up location; and (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), "correct position"(placement location)
perform an integrity check of the second package using the plurality of sensors located in the pallet loading area. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(FSR sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
With respect to Claim 5, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 2 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 5, Lehmann discloses as follows:
The pallet loading system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of sensors includes one or more of:
an image sensor, a force-sensitive resistor (FSR), an infrared sensor, or a light-detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(FSR sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
With respect to Claim 8, which depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 8, Lehmann discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of the package includes one or more of: (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
a property of the package, an order description, or placement criteria for the package. (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
With respect to Claim 10, which depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 10, Lehmann discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of the loading operator includes a type of loading operator and a capability of the loading operator. (See Col. 12, Lines 30-42; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator)
With respect to independent Claim 13, Lehmann discloses the limitations of independent Claim 13 as follows:
A non-transitory machine-readable with instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the processor to: (See Col. 29, Lines 16-25, 43-48; Fig. 12; Ref. Numeral 1210A(processor)
receive package loading data, the package loading data including characteristics of a package to be placed on a pallet and characteristics of a loading operator; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), , "characteristics"(loading data), "desired position"(placement location)
determine, based on the characteristics of the package and the characteristics of the loading operator, a placement location on the pallet for the package; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), , "characteristics"(loading data), "desired position"(placement location)
display a visual marking in relation to the placement location; and (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
output an instruction to the loading operator to place the package at the placement location based on the visual marking. (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; and Col. 14, Lines 7-15; Figs. 3, 4; 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
With respect to Claim 14, which depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 14, Lehmann discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
detect the package at the placement location or a loading operator package pick-up location; and (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), "correct position"(placement location)
perform an integrity check of the package using a plurality of sensors located in a pallet loading area. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
With respect to Claim 15, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and Claim 14 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 15, Lehmann discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable of claim 14, wherein, responsive to failure of the integrity check of the package, the instructions cause the processor to:
display an error; and (See Col. 15, Lines13-19; Col. 24, Lines 30-44; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator), 312(display); Step 914
output a second instruction to the loading operator that includes a mitigation technique to correct the error. (See Col. 15, Lines13-19; Col. 24, Lines 30-44; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 224(loading operator); Step 914
With respect to Claim 16, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and Claim 14 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 16, Lehmann discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable of claim 14, wherein, responsive to success of integrity check of the package, the instructions further cause the processor to:
receive additional package loading data, (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
the additional package loading data including characteristics of a second package to be placed on a pallet; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
determine, based on the characteristics of the second package and the characteristics of the loading operator, a second placement location on the pallet for the second package; (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), , "characteristics"(loading data), "desired position"(placement location)
display a second visual marking in relation to the second placement location for the second package; (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
output an additional instruction to the loading operator to place the second package at the second placement location based on the second visual marking; (See Col. 13, Lines 38-56; and Col. 14, Lines 7-15; Figs. 3, 4; 305(package), 306(projection device), 224(loading operator), "desired position"(placement location)
detect the package at the second placement location or the loading operator package pick-up location; and (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Figs. 3, 4; Ref. Numerals 305(package), "correct position"(placement location)
perform an integrity check of the second package using the plurality of sensors located in the pallet loading area. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(FSR sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
With respect to Claim 17, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and Claim 14 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 17, Lehmann discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable of claim 14, wherein the plurality of sensors includes one or more of:
an image sensor, a force-sensitive resistor (FSR), an infrared sensor, or a light-detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor. (See Col. 14, Lines 25-47; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(FSR sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
With respect to Claim 19, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and Claim 14 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 19, Lehmann discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable of claim 14, wherein the characteristics of the package includes one or more of: (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
a property of the package, an order description, or placement criteria for the package. (See Col. 4, Line 48-Col. 5, Line 16; Fig. 3; Ref. Numerals 208(1)(pallet), 305(package), "characteristics"(loading data)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6, 9, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann, as applied to the claims set forth above, in view of Pidaparthi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0043953).
With respect to Claim 6, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 5 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 6, Lehmann and Pidaparthi et al disclose as follows:
The pallet loading system of claim 5, wherein the image sensor includes an RGB camera, and (See Pidaparthi et a: Pars. 0028, 0056; Fig. 1; Ref. Numerals 106(pallet), 114(RGB camera)
wherein one or more of the infrared sensor, the FSR, or the LIDAR sensor are located on a measurement platform or a sensor array below the pallet. (See Lehmann: Col. 14, Lines 25-52; Col. 15, Lines 4-12; Col. 24, Lines 11-29; Figs. 3, 9; Ref. Numerals 208(pallet loading area), 305(package), 330(image sensor-camera), 332(FSR sensor-scale), "correct position"(placement location); Step 912
It 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, to modify Lehmann with the teachings of Pidaparthi et al to have the camera be a RGB camera in order to take #D images of the packages on the pallet. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pidaparthi et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (i.e., using a RBG camera to take images of packages on a pallet) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 9, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 11, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 8 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 9, Pidaparthi et al discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
determine a fragility rating for the package using the characteristics of the package, and (See Pars. 0079-0081, 0118; "Values for other characteristics associated with the pallet/palletization process may be included in the function pertaining to the best placement." A fragile item is an attribute that is considered in the rating and in placement on the pallet.
wherein the placement location is determined at least in part on the fragility rating. (See Pars. 0079-0081, 0118; "Values for other characteristics associated with the pallet/palletization process may be included in the function pertaining to the best placement." A fragile item is an attribute that is considered in the rating and in placement on the pallet.
It 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, to modify Lehmann with the teachings of Pidaparthi et al to have a fragility rating for a package based on attributes of the items in the package so that damaging the items in the process of stacking the packages on a pallet can be avoided. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pidaparthi et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (i.e., using ratings based on the attributes of the items in a package in a stacking process) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 11, which depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 11, Pidaparthi et al discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 1, wherein the placement location is selected from a plurality of candidate placement locations and is determined using an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) algorithm based at least in part on an analysis by the algorithm of the characteristics of the package and the characteristics of the loading operator. (See Abstract; Pars. 0029, 0038, 0039, 0043, 0080, 0081, 0105)
It 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, to modify Lehmann with the teachings of Pidaparthi et al to employ a Machine Learning algorithm to obtain better stacking strategies and processes based on analysis of the characteristics associated with the packages. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pidaparthi et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (i.e., using ML analysis of characteristics of the items in a stacking process) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 12, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 1, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, and Lehmann and Pidaparthi et al together teach all of the limitations of Claim 11, which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 12, Pidaparthi et al discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 11, wherein the algorithm includes a Monte Carlo algorithm. (See Pars. 0102, 0106, 0155, 0188; Figs. 4A, 7) Most iterative machine learning processes employ a Monte Carlo type algorithm.
It 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, to modify Lehmann with the teachings of Pidaparthi et al to employ iterative machine learning processes based on a Monte Carlo type algorithm to obtain better stacking strategies and processes based on analysis of the characteristics associated with the packages. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pidaparthi et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (i.e., using iterative machine learning processes based on a Monte Carlo type algorithm) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 20, which ultimately depends from independent Claim 13, Lehmann teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and Claim 19 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 20, Pidaparthi et al discloses:
The pallet loading system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
determine a fragility index for the package using the characteristics of the package, and (See Pars. 0079-0081, 0118; "Values for other characteristics associated with the pallet/palletization process may be included in the function pertaining to the best placement." A fragile item is an attribute that is considered in the rating and in placement on the pallet.
wherein the placement location is determined at least in part on the fragility index. (See Pars. 0079-0081, 0118; "Values for other characteristics associated with the pallet/palletization process may be included in the function pertaining to the best placement." A fragile item is an attribute that is considered in the rating and in placement on the pallet.
It 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, to modify Lehmann with the teachings of Pidaparthi et al to have a fragility index for a package based on attributes of the items in the package so that damaging the items in the process of stacking the packages on a pallet can be avoided. A person with skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Pidaparthi et al because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor (using ratings (i.e., indices) based on the attributes of the items in a package in a stacking process) which would prompt its use in the same field based on design improvements that are predictable and would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The subject matter in dependent Claim 7 was neither found nor taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 8:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 March 6, 2026