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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20260720, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9358150 to Jodoin et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 9359150 to Jodoin et al.
With respect to claim 1, Jodoin discloses a conveyance system comprising: an in-feed conveyor for conveying a high density flow of a plurality of parcels; a first pick conveyor configured for being selectively activated and deactivated in order to space out the plurality of parcels and turn the high density flow into a low density flow of parcels; a second pick conveyor in series with and downstream of the first pick conveyor; a first place conveyor; a second place conveyor in series with and downstream of the first place conveyor; a first robot configured for transferring parcels from the first pick conveyor to the first place conveyor; and a second robot configured for transferring parcels from the second pick conveyor to the second place conveyor (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
611
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(as to “selectively activated and deactivated”, see col. 3, line 63 to col. 4 , line 3).
With respect to claim 6, Jodoin discloses further comprising a vision subsystem comprising a plurality of cameras configured for obtaining images of the parcels in the system (see numeral 20 in Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 8 and 17-24).
With respect to claim 7, Jodoin discloses further comprising a plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of: the first pick conveyor (col. 3, lines 1-5 wherein the singulator comprises sensors 20 that locate and characterize the products)
With respect to claim 8, Jodoin discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise line sensors, multi beam sensors, or a combination thereof (col. 4, lines 27-29).
With respect to claim 11, Jodoin discloses a vision system (20) comprising at least one camera configured for obtaining images of items on at least one of the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor (see numeral 20 in Fig. 1); and a processor configured for processing the images in order to determine placement accuracy (col. 4, lines 36-40).
With respect to claim 12, Jodoin discloses wherein the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor are collinear (see numerals 25 and 26 in Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 7).
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.
Claims 2, 3 and13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 9358150 to Jodoin et al., as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11753256 to Patil et al.
With respect to claim 2, Jodoin discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the first robot is further configured for avoiding the second pick conveyor and the second place conveyor, and wherein the second robot is further configured for avoiding the first pick conveyor and the first place conveyor.
Patil teaches wherein the first robot is further configured for avoiding the second pick conveyor and the second place conveyor, and wherein the second robot is further configured for avoiding the first pick conveyor and the first place conveyor (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Patil with the disclosure of Jodoin for the most efficient operation of the robots and conveyors, avoiding slowdowns caused by waiting for one robot to finish its operation before the second robot can perform.
With respect to claim 3, Jodoin discloses all the claim language but does not disclose a buffer place conveyor positioned between the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor such that the buffer place conveyor is in series with the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor, is downstream of the first place conveyor, and is upstream of the second place conveyor.
Patil et al. teaches a buffer place conveyor positioned between the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor such that the buffer place conveyor is in series with the first place conveyor and the second place conveyor, is downstream of the first place conveyor, and is upstream of the second place conveyor (see numeral 420 in Fig. 13 and col. 19, line 66 to col. 20 line 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Patil et al. with the disclosure of Jodoin so that parcels “can be selectively indexed to regulate the rate at which parcels offloaded by the first place conveyor are subsequently transferred to the second place conveyor (see col. 20, lines 2-4).
With respect to claim 13, Patil teaches wherein the first place conveyor, the second place conveyor and the buffer place conveyor are collinear (see the Patil annotated drawing below):
PNG
media_image2.png
621
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 9358150 to Jodoin et al., as set out above in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0290824 to Briddell et al., hereinafter referred to simply as, “Briddell”.
With respect to claim 4, Jodoin et al. discloses all the claim language but does not disclose further comprising a first exceptions handling area downstream of the second pick conveyor.
Briddell teaches further comprising a first exceptions handling area downstream of the second pick conveyor (see numeral 56 in Fig. 3 and [0028], second to last sentence). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Briddell with the disclosure of Jodoin to maintain the flow of goods with limited interruption.
With respect to claim 5, Jodoin discloses all the claim language but does not disclose a second exception handling area upstream of the first place conveyor.
Briddell teaches a second exception handling area upstream of the first place conveyor (see [0028], lines 11 and 12, n.b. “…to a return conveyor returning the rejected bottom package back upstream…”). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Briddell with the disclosure of Jodoin to return exceptions to the beginning of the flow line in the event they can be reused.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights