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 .
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 1, 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 12515887 to Uriarte, U.S. Pat. No. 12116216 to Faieta and U.S. pat. No. 6377867 to Bradley and U.S. Pat. No. 11851293 to Graston.
With respect to claim 1, Uriarte discloses a conveyance system comprising:
an in-feed conveyor for conveying a high density flow of a plurality of parcels (see numeral 12 in Fig. 1 and col. 13, line 41);
a first pick conveyor configured for being selectively activated (when moving a good) and deactivated (when not moving a good) in order to space out the plurality of parcels and turn the high density flow into a low density flow of parcels (see numeral 13 in Fig. 1 and col. 13, lines 37-44). The Uriarte conveyor 13 is not defined as a pick conveyor. However, the Uriarte conveyor could be used as a pick conveyor as shown in Faieta, infra, and given applicant’s sole limitation for the pick conveyor being a conveyor.
Faieta teaches a sorting conveyor used as a pick conveyor (see the sorting area, numeral 8 in Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 21-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosure of Uriarte with the teachings of Faieta because dual purposing a conveyor saves space, time and potentially money. Neither Uriarte nor Faieta discloses a first pick conveyor and a second pick conveyor in series with and downstream of the first pick conveyor.
Bradley teaches a first pick conveyor and a second pick conveyor in series with and downstream of the first pick conveyor (col. 6, lines 44-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosures of Uriarte and Faieta with the teachings of Bradley because given having one line for the picking conveyors while using each conveyor for different items would be economical in terms of the placement of the robots and placing of the placement conveyors. The proximity alone would save money in terms of warehouse space and structural materials used. Neither Uriarte nor Faieta or Bradley disclose 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.
Graston teaches 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
826
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosures of Uriarte and Faieta with the teachings of Bradley because it would be economical in terms of the placement of the robots and placing of the placement conveyors. The proximity alone would save money in terms of warehouse space and structural materials.
Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 11753256 to Patil.
With respect to claim 2, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston disclose all the claim language but do 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 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Patil with the disclosures of Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston because to not plan for avoidance with robots working so close to each other and on the same line would be taking a chance on the continue successful operations of the conveyor.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston and Patil disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is further comprising 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; claim 13 wherein the first place conveyor, the second place conveyor, and the buffer place conveyor are collinear.
Patil teaches further comprising 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; and teaches wherein the first place conveyor, the second place conveyor, and the buffer place conveyor are collinear. (See Patil annotated Fig. 13 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
752
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is further comprising a vision subsystem comprising a plurality of cameras configured for obtaining images of the parcels in the system.
Patil teaches further comprising a vision subsystem comprising a plurality of cameras configured for obtaining images of the parcels in the system (see Abstract, second sentence, see numeral 34 in Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 9-12; see numeral 36, col. 5, lines 52-54).
With respect to claim 7, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is further comprising a plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of: the first pick conveyor, the second pick conveyor, the first place conveyor, and the second place conveyor, wherein the plurality of sensors are configured for detecting whether a part is present.
Patil teaches further comprising a plurality of sensors operatively coupled to at least one of: the first pick conveyor, the second pick conveyor, the first place conveyor, and the second place conveyor, wherein the plurality of sensors are configured for detecting whether a part is present (see Abstract, second sentence, see numeral 34 in Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 9-12; see numeral 36, col. 5, lines 52-54).
With respect to claim 8, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley and Graston disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the plurality of sensors comprise line sensors, multi beam sensors, or a combination thereof.
Patil teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprise line sensors, multi beam sensors, or a combination thereof (col. 7, lines 34-37).
With respect to claim 11, Patil teaches a vision system 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 Abstract, second sentence, see numeral 34 in Figs. 1-5, col. 2, lines 9-12; see numeral 36, col. 5, lines 52-54 and col 7 line 37 to col. 8 line 7); and a processor configured for processing the images in order to determine placement accuracy (col.14, lines 6-22).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston and Patil as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 12157632 to Wagner.
With respect to claim 4, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston and Patil disclose all the claim language but what is not disclosed is further comprising a first exceptions handling area downstream of the second pick conveyor.
Wagner teaches further comprising a first exceptions handling area downstream of the second pick conveyor (col. 20, lines 23-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Wagner with the disclosures of Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston and Patil to cover parcels that are in some way outside of the range of parcels being processed because it would clear the conveyor for its intended parcels.
With respect to claim 5, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston, Patil, and Wagner disclose all the claim language but do not disclose further comprising a second exceptions handling area upstream of the first place conveyor. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). While having a second exceptions area would have advantages the advantages would be a design consideration with the skill of the art. No advantages are disclosed beyond that of the functioning exceptions area and where along the conveying line it may be placed and that would be a design consideration.
With respect to claim 12, Uriarte, Faieta, Bradley, Graston, Patil, and Wagner disclose all the claim language, but not yet discussed is wherein the first place conveyor, the second place conveyor, and the buffer place conveyor are collinear.
Patil teaches wherein the first place conveyor, the second place conveyor, and the buffer place conveyor are collinear (see annotated Fig. 13 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
752
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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. Claim 9 would be allowable because the prior art does not teach identifying exceptional parcels and then instructing robots to avoid them. Claim 10 would be allowable because reversing the direction of the placement conveyors to reach an area upstream of the first place conveyor for release or deposition is not taught in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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