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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 09/12/2023, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-13 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2023; 11/01/2023; 12/19/2024 and 09/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1. – a reserving section …In claims 1 and 4.
2. – a receiving part …In claim 1.
3. – a delivering part …In claim 1.
3. – a plurality of support members …In claims 1, 5-13.
3. – a transfer unit…In claim 1.
3. – an abnormality-managing unit …In claims 1-3, 5-11, 13.
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..
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Must et al (US 20200361711 - From IDS - “Must”) in view of Clancy et al (WO 2020/221767 - From IDS – “Clancy”).
Regarding claim 1, Must discloses a pickup and delivery or selling apparatus that is transportable (e.g., Automated Outdoor Terminal For Storage And Handover Of Online Orders And A Method To Operate The Terminal- see figures 1-4), the apparatus comprising:
a reserving section in which an article can be reserved (e.g., see the space between the shelf posts 403 that serve as storage for totes 100 as shown in figure 7);
PNG
media_image1.png
512
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a receiving part in which the article to be reserved in the reserving section is received (e.g., see figs 3A-3B: user console 600 comprising at least an input device for receiving an input from a user for loading or retrieving one or more grocery orders – see [0022, 0045]);
a delivering part in which the article is delivered (e.g., see figs 3A-3B: user console 600 comprising at least an input device for receiving an input from a user for loading or retrieving one or more grocery orders – see [0022, 0045]);
PNG
media_image3.png
496
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a plurality of support members each used for supporting the article in the reserving section (see fig. 7: totes 100; see [0067] disclosing the automated grocery terminal uses standard grocery totes 100 to store goods inside the terminal. In certain embodiments, the totes may come in different sizes preferably based on their depth, but also the length may differ. According to a preferred embodiment, to accommodate totes with different lengths different sized tote frames may be used. The frame may also be adjustable for different sized totes. The frame is also called here receptacle.);
a transfer unit configured to transfer the support members each supporting the article between the reserving section and either the receiving part or the delivering part (e.g., see figure 4: loader 200, mast 400, bottom/top rail 402/504, etc. – see [0017, 0023-0024]; see also fig.9-11); and
Must teaches substantially the claimed invention, but does not expressly teach an abnormality-managing unit configured to perform a predetermined response to an abnormality occurring in the support members.
However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Clancy teaches the claimed features implemented in a system where food products are handle, and further teaching the use of an abnormality-managing unit (e.g., cleaning unit 502) configured to perform a predetermined response to an abnormality occurring in the support members (e.g. containers 401 and bins 10) (see at least page 5- third paragraph; see page 6- second paragraph; page 23- second paragraph; and page 26- fourth paragraph – all these sections disclosing the contamination detection (i.e. abnormality) and then execution of the cleaning operation).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Must to include the idea of an abnormality-managing unit configured to perform a predetermined response to an abnormality as taught by Clancy for the benefit of having the control unit comprising a determining unit arranged to determine whether the container is contaminated based on the received image and a commanding unit arranged to, when the determining unit determines that the container is contaminated, direct the container to a cleaning unit.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Must in view of Clancy discloses as discussed in claim 1. Must is silent to disclose, (claim 2) wherein the abnormality-managing unit does not perform the predetermined response while a function of the pickup and delivery or selling is suspended in the pickup and delivery or selling apparatus. (claim 3) wherein the abnormality-managing unit does not perform the predetermined response while the pickup and delivery or selling apparatus is transported.
However, Clancy teaches at figure 3- step S303, if the control unit does not detect contamination, then the container may be direct to a filling unit in which new products may be placed in the container. Similarly, direction to the filling unit may be performed by the control unit controlling the conveying means, diverting means pushing means of the like. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Must in view of Clancy discloses as discussed in claim 1. Must further discloses wherein: the article is fruits and vegetables (e.g. frozen groceries and dairy products), pharmaceutical products, or processed foods (e.g. frozen groceries); and
the reserving section freezes or refrigerates the article for storage (see [0054] the terminal contains more than two zones, e.g. A, B and C. The at least two zones are separated from each other by insulated walls 501 and sliding doors 502. These temperature zones may be selected to be adjusted to anywhere from −18° C. to +15° C. According to some embodiments, temperature of one or more zones may also kept at ambient temperature. According to one preferred embodiment, one zone has a temperature adjusted to −18° C. for storage of frozen groceries and one zone has a temperature adjusted to +2° C. for storage of dairy products and such.).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 10, Must in view of Clancy discloses as discussed in claim 1. Must is silent to disclose (claim 5) further comprising: an abnormality-detecting unit configured to detect the abnormality of the support members, the abnormality-managing unit performs the predetermined response to the support members having the abnormality detected by the abnormality-detecting unit. (claim 6) wherein the abnormality-managing unit includes a washing unit configured to wash the support members having the abnormality. (claim 10) wherein: the abnormality-detecting unit detects contamination of the support members; and the abnormality-managing unit washes the support members having the contamination detected by the abnormality-detecting unit or replaces the support members having the contamination detected by the abnormality-detecting unit with the support members without the abnormality.
However, Clancy teaches the control unit 100 is arranged to automatically detect contamination in the container 401 and direct the container to the cleaning unit 502 when required or permit the container 401 to continue to the filling unit 501. Therefore, the imaging unit 201 is arranged to image the container 401. The image of the container 401 is received by the control unit 100 which is arranged to determine whether the container 401 is contaminated. If the control unit 100 determines that the container 401 is not contaminated then the control unit 100 may be arranged to direct the container 401 to the filling unit 501 to be filled with products. However, if the container 401 is determined to be contaminated then the control unit 100 is arranged to direct the container 401 to the cleaning unit 502 to be cleaned. See motivation to combine as set forth above in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose the combination of limitations found in Claims 7-9 and 11-13. The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant's claimed invention. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656