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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of December 19, 2023 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on October 13, 2023. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recognition apparatus [Claim 2, 11], vision and/or scanning device [Claim 2, 12], storage area for commissioning supports [Claim 5], automatic loading apparatus [Claim 5] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 1, see the limitation “article picking apparatus which is configured to selectively take one or more articles” with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and modified by “configured to selectively take one or more articles”.
In claims 2 and 12, see the limitation “vision and/or scanning device” with “device” being the generic placeholder and modified by “scanning”.
In claim 5, see the limitation “automatic loading apparatus being provided to selectively load one of these commissioning supports” with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and modified by “to selectively load one of these commissioning supports”.
In claim 6, see the limitation “component for managing the allocation of articles” with “component” being the generic placeholder and “managing the allocation of articles” being the modifying functional language.
In claim 6, see the limitation “component for managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles” with “component” being the generic placeholder and “managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles” being the modifying functional language.
In claim 6, see the limitation “component which manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type” with “component” being the generic placeholder and “manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type” being the modifying functional language.
In claim 6, see the limitation “artificial intelligence software component (AIS) which is provided for interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof” with “component” being the generic placeholder and “interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof” being the modifying functional language.
In claim 7, see the limitation “article picking apparatus which is configured to selectively pick sequentially a plurality of articles” with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and modified by “configured to selectively pick sequentially a plurality of articles”.
In claim 7, see the limitation “gripping member which is configured to take each article laterally” with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and modified by “configured to take each article laterally”.
In claim 11, see the limitation “recognition apparatus which is provided to recognize a compartment” with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and “to recognize a compartment” being the modifying functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Claim limitation “automatic loading apparatus being provided to selectively load one of these commissioning supports” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, the claim lacks the necessary written description support.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component for managing the allocation of articles” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, the claim lacks the necessary written description support.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component for managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, the claim lacks the necessary written description support.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component which manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, the claim lacks the necessary written description support.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “artificial intelligence software component (AIS) which is provided for interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, the claim lacks the necessary written description support.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the language “storage support of the pallet type” and “commissioning support of the pallet type” is unclear because the meaning of “pallet type” is vague. Is the language setting forth the supports are pallets? Is there a specific structural detail that renders the supports as being “of the pallet type”.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Claim limitation “recognition apparatus” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while “apparatus” is considered a generic placeholder, the claim does not appear to recite modifying functional language. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a recognition apparatus”, and the claim also recites “the recognition apparatus preferably comprises a vision and/or scanning device” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the use of the term “preferably” calls into question whether or not the language following the term is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Claim limitation “automatic loading apparatus being provided to selectively load one of these commissioning supports” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the limitation without any disclosure of structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the use of the term “preferably” calls into question whether or not the language following the term is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the claim recites “a control system which is implemented on a computer being programmed to coordinate the movements of the commissioning vehicles”, “the control system implemented on a computer is programmed to simulate temporally defined activity cycles” and “the control system implemented on a computer comprises a plurality of control software components”. The claim is indefinite because the number of computers is unclear. Further, the claim language is unclear as to whether or not the same control system is implemented on different computers.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component for managing the allocation of the articles” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is considered to be a computer-implemented means plus function limitation. The specification fails to set forth a corresponding algorithm for performing the function of “managing the allocation of the articles”. Further, the specification fails to disclose what “managing the allocation of the articles” entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component for managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is considered to be a computer-implemented means plus function limitation. The specification fails to set forth a corresponding algorithm for performing the function of “managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles”. Further, the specification fails to disclose what “managing the routes of the fleet of commissioning vehicles” entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “component which manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is considered to be a computer-implemented means plus function limitation. The specification fails to set forth a corresponding algorithm for performing the function of “manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type”. Further, the specification fails to disclose what “manages the positioning of the articles on the commissioning support of the pallet type” entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Claim limitation “artificial intelligence software component (AIS) which is provided for interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation is considered to be a computer-implemented means plus function limitation. The specification fails to set forth a corresponding algorithm for performing the function of “interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof”. Further, the specification fails to disclose what “interacting with the control software components and for sending the indications thereof” entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the use of the phrase “for example” calls into question whether or not the language following the phrase is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the claim lacks antecedent for “the predetermined overall commissioning objectives”. It is unclear what the limitation encompasses.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the claim recites “commissioning vehicle which can be used in a commissioning system according to claim 1”. This renders the claim indefinite because the claim 1 already recites a commissioning vehicle. It is unclear if the language of claim 7 is setting forth an additional vehicle or is attempting to limit the vehicle previously recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the use of the term “preferably” calls into question whether or not the language following the term is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the use of the term “preferably” calls into question whether or not the language following the term is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the claim lacks antecedent basis for “the transfer platform”. The claim language is unclear as to what element is being referred.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bastian et al. (USPN 20190322451 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Bastian et al. (USPN 20190322451 A1) teaches a commissioning system for picking articles from storage supports of the pallet type (pallets 127) and organizing them on a commissioning support (pallet supported by vehicle 105), comprising a plurality of compartments (Figure 1 shows two stacks of containers within storage unit 145, the two stacks being considered compartments) which are distributed beside at least one lane (the space in front of the storage unit 145 is considered a lane) and which comprise a show portion on the lane (the portions of the stack facing the vehicle are considered show portions), each compartment being provided in order to receive a respective storage support (transport structure 125) of the pallet type (pallet 127) for stored articles, at least one commissioning vehicle (vehicle 105) which is provided to transport at least one commissioning support of the pallet type (a pallet is shown being supported on the vehicle in Figure 1), the commissioning vehicle being provided with an article picking apparatus (robot arm 110) which is configured to selectively take one or more articles which are stored on the storage supports from the show portion of one or more compartments of the plurality of compartments, wherein the commissioning vehicle is configured to move along the at least one lane and to stop in the region of compartments which are selected in order to pick from the storage supports [Par. 108, “Vehicle 105 approaches the stack of beverages”], via the article picking apparatus, a selection of articles in accordance with an order and to position on the commissioning support the articles which are picked in this manner in order to form an ordered and stacked grouping [Para. 108, “robot arm 110 is able to remove the containers 130 from the stack and place the containers 130 on the transport structure 125”].
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the commissioning vehicle is provided with a recognition apparatus (“vision system”) for the show portion on the lane in order to be positioned in a precise manner in the region of the show portion on the lane of each compartment, from which to pick the selection of articles, and wherein the recognition apparatus preferably comprises a vision and/or scanning device (“vision system) in order to define one or more positioning references on the compartment, the vehicle manoeuvring in front of the show portion on the lane of the compartment in accordance with positioning signals which are processed on the basis of the data received from the vision and/or scanning device [Para. 6, “robot arm and/or AGV includes a vision system…for sensing the position of the robot arm, AGV, and/or EoAT”].
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Bastian et al. teaches a commissioning vehicle which can be used in a commissioning system according to claim 1, comprising: a receiving zone with a support base for at least one commissioning support of the pallet type (the lift mechanism 120 supports a pallet 127), an article picking apparatus (robot arm 110) which is configured to selectively pick sequentially a plurality of articles from storage supports of the pallet type which are arranged externally with respect to the vehicle and to position them in an ordered manner in the receiving zone on-board the vehicle, wherein the picking apparatus comprises a gripping member (vacuum cups 320) which is configured to take each article laterally.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the article picking apparatus comprises at least one articulated arm [Para. 127, “articulated robot”] which is provided at the end thereof with the gripping member, preferably comprising an assembly of suction cups (vacuum cups 320).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the article picking apparatus comprises a transfer platform (support fingers 325) on which there is positioned in a supporting manner each article which is gripped laterally by the gripping member, the transfer platform being movable in order to transfer the article which is positioned in a supporting manner thereon [Para. 93, “support fingers 325 is able to rotate or pivot”], from a storage area which is outside the vehicle to a predetermined position in the receiving zone on-board the commissioning vehicle, and wherein preferably the gripping member and the movable transfer platform are movable with respect to each other in order to transfer the article from the support position on the platform to the predetermined position in the receiving zone on-board the commissioning vehicle. The support fingers are disclosed as being able to rotate or pivot; therefore, the fingers would be movable with respect to the vacuum cups.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, a recognition apparatus (“vision system”) which is provided to recognize a compartment which is arranged along the route of the vehicle, and to be positioned in a precise manner in the region of a show portion of the compartment, and wherein preferably the recognition apparatus is provided to recognize a storage support and/or stored articles on a storage support [Para. 6, “robot arm and/or AGV includes a vision system…for sensing the position of the robot arm, AGV, and/or EoAT”].
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the recognition apparatus comprises a vision and/or scanning device (“vision system”) for defining one or more positioning references on the compartment, a guide system for the commissioning vehicle being provided to manoeuvre in front of the show portion of the compartment in accordance with positioning signals which are processed on the basis of the data which are received from the vision and/or scanning device [Para. 6, “robot arm and/or AGV includes a vision system…for sensing the position of the robot arm, AGV, and/or EoAT”].
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the picking apparatus is mounted on a structure which is selectively movable in a lateral direction with respect to the movement direction of the vehicle along a lane, and which is configured to move into selective support against a show zone of a compartment which faces along the lane. In figure 1, the storage unit (145) is located laterally of the direction of movement of the vehicle; therefore, the robot arm would move laterally in order to engage an article.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gooding (USPN 3297175).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the storage supports of the pallet type all have at least one standard uniform dimension, the show portion of the compartments on the lane having a predetermined and uniform show width which is slightly greater than the standard uniform dimension of the storage supports of the pallet type or a multiple thereof. Gooding (USPN 3297175) teaches a compartment (bulkhead 68, Figure 6) having a floor plate (70), angle braces (74), and an upright (72). A pallet is received in the bulkhead and the bulkhead “maintains the pallet loads properly and exactly positioned on the pallets” [Col. 1:49-52]. Also, see [Col. 2:37-59, “bulkhead type of structure especially adapted for use in restraining the movement of the bags”; “upright members and braces restrain the material which is resting on the floor members so that it cannot shift”] The dimensions of the bulkhead are such that the articles on the pallet are supported and the pallet is supported on the floor plate [Col. 3:47-61]. Gooding is considered to teach the show portion of the compartment having a predetermined and uniform show width which is slightly greater than the dimension of the storage support of the pallet type. Gooding further discloses “a standard pallet” [Col. 3:48}, which implies the pallet has a standard uniform dimension. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bastian et al. such that the storage supports of the pallet type all have at least one standard uniform dimension, the show portion of the compartments on the lane having a predetermined and uniform show width which is slightly greater than the standard uniform dimension of the storage supports of the pallet type or a multiple thereof as taught by Gooding. The storage supports would be the same size and the articles on the storage supports would be maintained in their position on the storage support.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach each compartment is provided, along the portion of the perimeter thereof which does not define the show portion on the lane, with barriers which prevent the stored articles from falling from the storage support thereof. Gooding teaches (as described above) the bulkheads and further teaches the bulkheads are provided, along the perimeter of three sides, with barriers (72, 74) which prevent the stored articles from falling from the pallet. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bastian et al. such that each compartment is provided, along the portion of the perimeter thereof which does not define the show portion on the lane, with barriers which prevent the stored articles from falling from the storage support thereof as taught by Gooding.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winkler (USPN 6817824).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a storage area for commissioning supports of the pallet type, an automatic loading apparatus being provided to selectively load one of these commissioning supports from the storage area for supports on a commissioning vehicle. Winkler (USPN 6817824) teaches loading empty pallets (20) onto a commissioning vehicle (EPM 10) from a pallet dispenser (65) [Col. 4:27-33], which is considered a storage area and automatic loading apparatus. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bastian et al. to include a storage area for commissioning supports of the pallet type, an automatic loading apparatus being provided to selectively load one of these commissioning supports from the storage area for supports on a commissioning vehicle in order to provide empty pallets to the vehicle at the beginning of an order.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Garabini et al. (USPN 11,926,061, having an effectively filed date of April 30, 2019).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the gripping member and the transfer platform are carried by two separate and movable arms which are coordinated with each other, respectively. Garabini et al. (USPN 11,926,061) teaches a gripping member (21) and a transfer platform (31) carried by two separate and movable arms (2, 3) which are coordinated with each other (by system 5 and the disclosed control unit [Col. 6:4-57]) . The advantage of the arrangement is that it is possible to move packages of any shape, size, weight and material [Col. 8:29-45]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bastian et al. such that the gripping member and the transfer platform are carried by two separate and movable arms which are coordinated with each other, respectively in order to increase the range of articles that can be manipulated.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Massey (US Pub 20170183157 A9).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the receiving zone is surrounded at three sides by barriers which prevent the articles which are stored on the commissioning support of the pallet type from falling. Massey teaches a commissioning vehicle (robot 30 having base 31) having barriers (wall sections 38) on three sides to hold products on the surface of the vehicle [Para. 45, 46; Figure 3]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bastian et al. such that the receiving zone is surrounded at three sides by barriers which prevent the articles which are stored on the commissioning support of the pallet type from falling as taught by Massey. Massey teaches using barriers to keep products on the vehicle, which is preventing the products from falling.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastian et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Weiss (USPN 8892241).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Bastian et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a plurality of lanes, towards which the plurality of compartments face, the lanes being able to be travelled by a plurality of commissioning vehicles which circulate simultaneously, each commissioning vehicle being provided to autonomously pick a corresponding selection of articles in accordance with a corresponding order, a control system which is implemented on a computer being programmed to coordinate the movements of the commissioning vehicles along the lanes and optimizing the respective stopping thereof in the region of the compartments in which the stored articles to be picked in an orderly manner are received. Weiss (USPN 8892241) teaches a plurality of lanes [Col. 2:20, “plurality of aisles”], the lanes being able to be travelled by a plurality of commissioning vehicles (transport 130) which circulate simultaneously, each commissioning vehicle being provided to autonomously pick a corresponding selection of articles in accordance with a corresponding order, a control system which is implemented on a computer being programmed to coordinate the movements of the commissioning vehicles along the lanes and optimizing the respective stopping thereof in the region of the compartments in which the stored articles to be picked in an orderly manner are received. The vehicles have a processor and memory, and is able to generate a pick list from an order, determine the pick faces from which to pick from, and generate a route for the vehicle [Col. 4:18-33]. Further, Weiss discloses optimizing the route to minimize congestion, which is considered to coordinate the movements of the commissioning vehicles along the lanes and optimizing the respective stopping thereof in the region of the compartments in which the stored articles to be picked in an orderly manner are received [Col. 7:5