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 § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tray support" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For sake of examination the claims are interpreted as shown in the art rejections below.
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)(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.
(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 1-6,11,15,17,25,32-35,38,39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Mattern (US 2019/0185266).
Re claims 1,32, Mattern teaches a part registration system and inherent method of positioning for registering one or more parts ([0062,0064,0077]) relative to a robot 2 having a robotic arm ([0057]) that defines a plane of optimal reach at a vertical position ([0104-0105], height of deposition element adjusted to ensure an optimum removal of the goods by the gripper), the part registration system comprising: a tray support rack 4 configured to support a plurality of trays (shelves 7 and/or containers 5 hold one or more goods, [0074,0082,0083]) for holding one or more parts, the tray support rack having a plurality of tray support regions ([0040]) in which one or more trays is supported (0037,0040]), the plurality of tray support regions being at different vertical positions (see figures); a tray support shelf (8,[0043,0090]) that is vertically adjustable ([0091]) relative to the tray support rack; and a tray transfer arrangement (the actuator) for transferring the trays between the tray support rack and the tray support shelf ([0016,0034,0044,0102)].
Re claim 2, Mattern teaches a controller (not numbered, “control unit”, [0005,0016,0042,0044,0049,0054,0063,0078,0091,0104,0105,114,etc.]) configured to control the vertical position of the tray support shelf.
Re claim 3, Mattern teaches the controller (not numbered, “control unit”, [0005,0016,0042,0044,0049,0054,0063,0078,0104,0105,114,etc.]) is configured to control the vertical position of the tray support shelf to vertically locate one or more parts within a selected one of the trays such that the one or more parts is positioned vertically proximate the plane of optimal reach ([0049,0104,0105, etc.]).
Re claim 4, Mattern teaches the controller (not numbered, “control unit”, [0005,0016,0042,0044,0049,0054,0063,0078,0104,0105,114,etc.]) is configured to control the vertical position of the tray support shelf to vertically locate the tray support shelf relative to the tray support rack to transfer a selected tray from the tray support rack onto the tray support shelf using the tray transfer arrangement and to transfer the selected tray from the tray support shelf to the tray support rack using the tray transfer arrangement.
Re claim 5, Mattern teaches the tray transfer arrangement is an actuator (10,16, figures 2-6, [0005,0016,0044,0045,0071,0095]) that is vertically positionable relative to the tray support rack to engage and actuate a selected one of the trays out of the tray support rack.
Re claim 6, Mattern teaches the tray transfer arrangement is carried on or formed as part of the tray support shelf such that vertically positioning of the actuator is performed by vertically positioning the tray support shelf (figures 2-6, [0005,0016,0026,0044,0045,0071,0095]).
Re claim 11, Mattern teaches a tray vertical location sensor (generally part of 3, [0078,0079,0080,0091,0102-0106]) that communicates with the controller, the controller using information sensed by the tray vertical location sensor to control the vertical position of the tray support shelf relative to the trays within the tray support rack.
Re claim 15, Mattern teaches the controller is configured to adjust the vertical position of a selected tray after a first part within the selected tray is processed by the robot and before a second part within the selected tray is processed by the robot (the controller moves to various heights based on picking order and sizes / orientations of goods and also would return the selected tray between picks of the different parts from same tray for different orders [0054,0080,0091,0092,0104,0105,0107,0108,0111-0114]).
Re claim 17, Mattern teaches the controller is configured to operably communicate with the tray support rack to obtain part dimensional information of parts carried by the tray support rack ([0005,0016,0042,0044,0049,0054,0063,0078,0104,0105,114,etc.]).
Re claim 25, Mattern teaches the controller ([0023,0054,0063,0080,0081]) can communicate, wired or wirelessly, with a CNC machine, grinder, painter, deburrer, press, welder or other equipment and cause the robot or part registration system to actuate.
Re claim 33, Mattern teaches ([0016,0034,0044,0102)] positioning the tray support shelf at a third vertical position for returning the selected tray to the tray support rack using the tray transfer arrangement; and transferring the selected tray from the tray support shelf to the tray support rack.
Re claim 34, Mattern teaches the first and third vertical positions are the same ([0016,0034,0044,0102]).
Re claim 35, Mattern teaches ([0016,0034,0044,0091,0102-0105]) positioning the tray support shelf at a fourth vertical position different than the first vertical position; transferring a second selected tray from the tray support rack to the tray support shelf; positioning the tray support shelf at a fifth vertical position, different than the second vertical position.
Re claim 38, Mattern teaches ([0023,0054,0063,0080,0091,0104, 0105,0114] sending a signal to the robot when the tray support shelf is in the second vertical position.
Re claim 39, Mattern teaches ([0023,0054,0063,0080,0091,0104, 0105,0114] the step of transferring the selected tray from the tray support rack to the tray support shelf includes engaging the selected tray with the tray transfer arrangement and actuating the selected tray with the tray transfer arrangement from the tray support rack to the tray support shelf.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8,10,21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern (US 2019/0185266).
Re claim 8, Mattern appears to teach the tray support rack is a cart (see figures) that requires direct manual manipulation by an operator to move the tray support relative to the tray support shelf and to dock the tray support rack with the tray support shelf. [0087] teaches manual movement of shelves / supports and [0081] teaches that manual picking methods/ systems are known though driverless transport systems have advantages. The manual movement of shelves / tray supports might be interpreted as meeting broadly manual manipulation for the whole movement / docking as claimed. But for sake of clarity as the reference also teaches automated driverless control advantages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mattern as claimed in order to allow manual control for situations where manual manipulation is preferable for safety, low power / power outages, blocked / ambiguous sensor readings, etc. to ensure proper and safe operation.
Re claim 10, it is unclear whether Mattern teaches the tray support rack and tray support shelf are formed as a single unitary unit, the tray support rack is prevented from being removed from the tray support shelf as they are described as working together as a unit. However, making something integral is known to be an obvious modification (MPEP 2144; In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Mattern as claimed in order to simplify transport by having a single unitary unit rather than multiple units that need to be transported to / from the place where it is used and also reducing to likelihood of parts being lost as there are connected.
Re claim 21, Mattern teaches ([0032,0048,0104,0105,0107,0111]) a plurality of tray support shelves & racks; and wherein a first one of the tray support shelves cooperates with a first tray support rack and a second one of the tray support shelves cooperates with a second tray support rack. Mattern does not mention processed & unprocessed parts but does mention different type goods in different containers & rack – shelf groupings & maximizing efficiency of order filing by using multiple rack -shelf groupings together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Mattern as claimed in order to maximize efficiency of order filing by locating the different type parts in different rack – shelf groupings for easier access & simplified organization when needed.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattern (US 2019/0185266) in view of Deppermann (US2013/0079917).
Re claim 24, Mattern teaches the tray support shelf 8,9 includes a shelf and a support structure (8,9,16,see figures 2-6, [0090,0091]) the shelf being movable vertically relative to the support structure. Mattern teaches a control system that communicates [0023,0054,0063,0080] but does not mention a visual display that can be used to display information. Deppermann teaches a part registration system 10 with a movable track rack cart 38 & support shelf for trays 54 with a control system 34 with LAN, Wi-fi & wired networks with a visual display (334, [0108-0109] ) for displaying things such as information, data and/or graphical representations to better communicate and control the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Mattern in view of Deppermann as claimed in order to have more & greater capabilities in communicating with the operator and various systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bidram (US 2020/0156868) teaches a part registration system with a vertically adjustable shelf / rack (abstract; figures 8,10-12; [0319]).
Haschke (US7,563,158) teaches (column 7, 2nd paragraph, 520, abstract, figures) a part registration system with a visual display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652