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 and 3-10 are pending in this application. Claim 1 was amended and claim 2 was canceled.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed August 26, 2026, with respect to an objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected their drawings as requested.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed August 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn. By amending their drawings and specification applicant has eliminated the grounds for indefiniteness of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. While applicant has overcome the rejections from the previous action via their amendment to independent claim 1, new teaching was found to demonstrate the amended claim as obvious. In the rejections below we replace reference Killian cited in the first action with new reference Lert, which teaches applicant’s amended limitations as well as the material formerly taught by Killian.
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: “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. Applicant’s feed device is now satisfactorily supported in the drawings by fig. 13.
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 § 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.
Note the rejections below are largely carried forward from the first action with the substantive exception of the rejection of amended claim 1.
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 Lert, et al., US 2009/0074545 (hereinafter Lert).
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;
However, Winkel does not disclose all aspects of:
and having a feed device for transporting an unladen pallet from the picking chute to the temporary pallet store or from the temporary pallet store to the picking chute;While Winkel does disclose a feeding device 42 in its fig. 1 and [0048], this feeding device does not satisfy the requirements of other limitations below and so we will replace it in combination with the feeding device of the secondary reference Lert.
wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes.
wherein the at least two storage locations in the temporary pallet store are arranged one above the other in a vertical direction of the picking chute, each storage location housing at least one unladen pallet;
and wherein the feed device is configured to independently move the unladen pallet between each of the at least two storage locations and the picking chute.Regarding the above limitations, 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. Moreover, Winkel does not disclose independent feed device access as claimed. Therefore we refer to a teaching reference for the feed device as in combination we will replace Winkel’s device with the devices from the reference.
Lert, an invention in the field of materials handling, teaches the missing aspect of:
and having a feed device (T3V 903: fig. 9, [0081]) for transporting an unladen pallet from the picking chute to the temporary pallet store or from the temporary pallet store to the picking chute;As taught in [0081] and claim 8 and seen in fig. 9, Lert’s T3Vs 903 provide horizontal access for moving pallets from temporary storage to a central vertical shaft and together these T3Vs constitute feed devices.
wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes.Lert teaches in [0081], claim 8, and fig. 9 a temporary storage system capable of storing multiple pallets. In combination with Winkel, this particular teaching need 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 as in Lert’s fig. 9) and that multiple stored pallets may be of different sizes.
wherein the at least two storage locations in the temporary pallet store are arranged one above the other in a vertical direction of the picking chute, each storage location housing at least one unladen pallet;This arrangement is seen in Lert’s fig. 9.
and wherein the feed device is configured to independently move the unladen pallet between each of the at least two storage locations and the picking chute.This arrangement is seen in Lert’s fig. 9 and taught in [0081], wherein the feed device comprises a plurality of T3Vs 903 each of which can independently move a pallet to a picking chute, which in Lert’s figure we map to the central chimney space but which in combination with Winkel would be the chute disclosed by Winkel.
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, (i) having a feed device for transporting an unladen pallet from the picking chute to the temporary pallet store or from the temporary pallet store to the picking chute; (ii) wherein the temporary pallet store has at least two storage locations for pallets of different sizes, (iii) wherein the at least two storage locations in the temporary pallet store are arranged one above the other in a vertical direction of the picking chute, each storage location housing at least one unladen pallet; and (iv) wherein the feed device is configured to independently move the unladen pallet between each of the at least two storage locations and the picking chute as taught by Lert. The first limitation is obvious because given a picking chute to and from which pallets are transported from temporary storage some mechanism (i.e. a “feed device”) must perform the mechanical work of transportation. The second limitation is obvious 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. The third limitation is obvious because vertical storage by means of shelves is likewise commonplace and has also been known since ancient times. The fourth limitation is obvious because firstly independent access to the feed device means that multiple pallets may be moved with greater efficiency than with a non-independent device that is forced to move vertically before serially accessing each of several vertically stacked pallets, and secondly because as Lert explains in [0081] this arrangement allows convenient access to malfunctioning feed devices.
Regarding claim 3,
Winkel in view of Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert 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 Lert and further in view of Read, Ian Ross, GB 1560714 (hereinafter Read).
Winkel in view of Lert 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 Lert, 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 Lert, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights