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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Claims 1-10 were amended by preliminary amendment.
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 “feed device” of claims 1 and 8 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. See also the Claim Interpretation section and the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
We note that applicant’s image source for its amended claims is low-resolution and includes grayed out text that has caused numerous problems for the USPTO’s OCR system. We respectfully request that subsequent amendments provide more clearly printed documents.
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 limitations use 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. Such claim limitations are: “and having a feed device” of claim 1 and “using the feed device” of claim 8. The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is due to the term “feed device” implying means plus function (“feeding”) with no structural amplification in the claims indicating what a feed device might be and how one might be implemented.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such a claim limitation is: the “means for holding and moving” of claim 8. Prong C of the above decision method is not satisfied in this case, because the claim explicitly discloses that the means comprises pallet supports, thus providing satisfactory structure to perform the function.
Because this/these claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 limitations “having a feed device” of claim 1 and “using a feed device” of claim 8 invoke 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. Although the term “feed device” appears 16 times in applicant’s specification, it is never structurally defined nor even exemplified as a particular machine or kind of machine. Moreover (see drawing objection above), no feed device is depicted in applicant’s figures. The greatest detail applicant supplies is in [0091]-[0092] and fig. 13, but all that can be determined is that the feed device comprises a holder, which appears to be a non-mechanical one-piece structure. But this is an unsatisfactory account of what is plainly a powered machine capable of transporting pallets through applicant’s system. Therefore, claims that recite the term “feed device” are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Moreover, as independent claim 1 is rejected on this ground, all dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 even if they do not recite the term.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [no listed inventors], DE 202016001581 (hereinafter Winkel) in view of Killian, et al., US 2008/0172858 (hereinafter Killian).
Note that reference Winkel has the same applicant, Winkel GmbH, as the instant application; but regardless of whether Winkel shares inventors with the instant application, being published in 2020 it is outside the grace period provided by 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A).
Regarding claim 1,
Winkel discloses:
A device for picking on pallets or goods carriers (device 10: fig. 1)
comprising a picking chute (chute 24: fig. 1);
a temporary pallet store for unladen pallets (buffer 40: fig. 1), the temporary pallet store being arranged laterally next to the picking chute;
and having a feed device (feeding device 42 with fork 54: fig. 1) for transporting an unladen pallet from the picking chute to the temporary pallet store or from the temporary pallet store to the picking chute;Note that the “feed device” of this limitation is being interpreted according to our best understanding (i.e. according to its ability to transport a pallet between the two claimed structures) because per the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, applicant’s claims, drawings, and specification fail to disclose much information about it. Winkel discloses the claimed functionality of its feeding device 42 in [0048].
However, Winkel does not disclose all aspects of:
wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes.While Winkel discloses a system capable of handling pallets of different sizes (e.g. 12 and 64 in fig. 13) and while it appears from Winkel’s figures that the temporary pallet store 40 has the capacity to store at least two pallets, and while a pallet of a smaller size can be stored on a surface capable of storing a pallet of a larger size (or indeed as is conventional, atop a larger pallet), no explicit disclosure of storing more than one pallet at a time is found. Therefore we refer to a teaching reference for this limitation.
Killian, an invention in the field of workpiece processing, teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes.Killian teaches in [0026] and fig. 2 a storage rack capable of storing multiple pallets. In combination with Winkel, this teaching does not change Winkel’s structure, but simply presents the commonplace understanding in the art that a pallet storage area can store more one pallet (either stacked directly atop one another or on separate horizontal shelves) and that multiple stored pallets may be of different sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Winkel, wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes, as taught by Killian, because the need to store more than one pallet is commonplace, because buffer areas capable of storing more than one pallet have been known since the invention of the pallet in ancient times, because the nature of surfaces is such that a surface capable of supporting a pallet of a given size can also support a smaller pallet, and because pallets are designed to be stacked.
Regarding claim 2,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the at least two storage locations in the temporary pallet store are arranged one above the other in the vertical direction of the picking chute.Killian teaches the vertical arrangement of pallet storage locations in [0026] and fig. 2.
Regarding claim 3,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising a lifting and lowering device (Winkel, lifting device 34: fig. 1) for moving an unladen pallet up to a level of the temporary pallet store.We note that Winkel’s robotic arm 18 is also capable of lifting or lowering a pallet to the level of the temporary pallet store 40.
Regarding claim 4,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the picking chute has at least one first adjustable chute wall (Winkel, 62: figs. 1-3), the first adjustable chute wall changing a free cross section of the picking chute at least in sections via a movement of the first adjustable chute wall perpendicular to a vertical direction of the picking chute, the first adjustable chute wall having an upper section (Winkel, 62b: fig. 1) and a lower section (Winkel, 62a: fig. 1) in the vertical direction of the picking chute, the upper section extending from a vertical position of the temporary pallet store to a picking plane (Winkel, top of 54: fig. 1), the lower section extending downwards starting from the vertical position of the temporary pallet store, and the upper section and the lower section are adjustable independently of each other.Winkel discloses the adjustable chute walls 60 and 62 in figs. 1-3 and [0055]-[0060], the sections being disclosed in [0055]. Note Winkel has two 54 reference characters in fig. 1. The claimed point of division between upper and lower sections is the horizontal line 54, not the pallet 54; Winkel discloses both these elements as picking planes.
Regarding claim 5,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the upper section of the first adjustable chute wall is connected to a horizontally arranged section of the picking planeWinkel discloses this connection in [0046] and [0055] via pins 26 in fig. 1-3.
Regarding claim 6,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
further comprising a second chute wall (Winkel, 60: fig. 1) adjustable at least in sections, the second adjustable chute wall being arranged perpendicular to the first adjustable chute wall, the second adjustable chute wall changing a free cross section of the picking chute at least in sections via a movement of the second adjustable chute wall perpendicular to the vertical direction of the picking chute.Winkel discloses the adjustable chute walls 60 and 62 in figs. 1-3 and [0055]-[0060]. We consider Winkel’s 60 to be applicant’s second chute wall because 62 has features ascribed above to the first chute wall. Otherwise, the two chute walls are both adjustable and perpendicular, together defining a rectangular extent of a pallet.
Regarding claim 8,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
including means for holding and moving (Winkel, 26: fig. 1) a pallet (Winkel, 12: fig. 1) in an upper section of the picking chute (Winkel, 24: fig. 1) between a vertical position of the temporary pallet store (Winkel, 40: fig. 1) and an upper end of the picking chute, the holding and moving means being designed and arranged to take an unladen pallet from the temporary pallet store using the feed device to move the unladen pallet to the upper end of the picking chute and, during a start of the loading process, to gradually lower the pallet until the pallet is transferred from the holding and moving means to a lifting and lowering device (Winkel, device 34, lifting fork 36: fig. 1), wherein the holding and moving means having several pallet supports (Winkel, 26: fig. 1) movable into a free cross-section of the picking chute and out of the free cross-section, and the pallet supports are movable into the free cross-section of the picking chute and out again below a standing surface (Winkel, top surface of 10 on which picking robot 18 is mounted: fig. 1) for a picker or a picking robot (Winkel, picking robot 18: fig. 1).We consider Winkel’s locking pins 26 in fig. 1 to constitute applicant’s “means for holding and moving”. These pins are equivalent to applicant’s pallet supports 78 (which applicant’s means comprise) and serve the same function. They can be raised or lowered through the chute, supporting a pallet or pallets, thus being “movable through a free cross-section” of the chute. Winkel also discloses in [0048] that its feeding device 42 and lifting fork 54 perform the function of transferring pallets, secured by its pins; we map Winkel’s feeding device to applicant’s feed device. As regards the subsequent gradual lowering through the chute, Winkel discloses a picking robot 18 that per [0052] lowers the pallet through the chute in cooperation with the pins 26 until it reaches the lifting and lowering device 34 and its fork 36.
Regarding claim 9,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
Wherein the pallet supports are movable only in and counter to a vertical direction of the picking chute above the standing surface for the picker or the picking robot.Winkel discloses the vertical movement of its locking pins in [0052] and that these pins are vertically adjustable in [0055]. In [0064] Winkel further discloses that its locking pins can be set above a pallet in fig. 7 and in [0064]. In this configuration, they may be above the standing surface, retaining the pallet in place for Winkel’s picking robot 18 to load the pallet with goods.
Regarding claim 10,
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
A method for picking on pallets or goods carriers with a device according to Claim 1.See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkel in view of Killian and further in view of Read, Ian Ross, GB 1560714 (hereinafter Read).
Winkel in view of Killian teaches the limitations of claim 6 but not all aspects of:
further including a third chute wall adjustable at least in sections, the third adjustable chute wall being arranged perpendicular to the first adjustable chute wall, and changing a free cross section of the picking chute can be at least in sections via movement of the third adjustable chute wall perpendicular to the vertical direction of the picking chute.While Winkel teaches a second adjustable chute wall that satisfies all the limitations of applicant’s third chute wall, Winkel only discloses two adjustable chute walls.
Read, an invention in the field of cabinet design, discloses the missing aspect of:
further including a third chute wall adjustable at least in sections, the third adjustable chute wall being arranged perpendicular to the first adjustable chute wall, and changing a free cross section of the picking chute can be at least in sections via movement of the third adjustable chute wall perpendicular to the vertical direction of the picking chute.Read discloses a third adjustable wall in p2/L3-6. In combination with Winkel and Killian, we adopt none of Read’s structure, merely the teaching that where a first and a second adjustable wall are provided in defining a rectangular space, there can also be a third adjustable wall. We suppose in this combination that Winkel’s second adjustable chute wall is replicated on the opposite side to replace the fixed third wall, which like the second will be perpendicular to the first.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Winkel and Killian, further including a third chute wall adjustable at least in sections, the third adjustable chute wall being arranged perpendicular to the first adjustable chute wall, and changing a free cross section of the picking chute can be at least in sections via movement of the third adjustable chute wall perpendicular to the vertical direction of the picking chute, as taught by Read, because firstly where a four-walled shape has two adjustable walls it can routinely be provided with a third, and secondly because providing a third adjustable wall to Winkel’s basic structure may make adjustment of the walls to match the shape of a pallet being picked or loaded more convenient and efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0022572 discloses a buffering area for pallets in connection with an elevator, i.e. a lifting and lowering device. The European examiner for a related patent to the instant application cited WO 2009109218 as an anticipatory X document for some claims that could have been cited in rejection in this action in the absence of primary reference Winkel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655