DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 21 and 36; and dependent claims 22-35 and 38-40.
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 Objections
Claim 40 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 23 should have an “and” before the last recited element.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 27-32, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer et al. (US 2019/0308823).
Regarding independent claim 21, Beer discloses a device for the processing of piece goods, comprising: at least one handling table (6) extending along a main axis, said at least one handling table having a manipulation zone (first portion of 6) and a collection zone (middle portion of 6); said manipulation zone and said collection zone being disposed one behind another along the main axis, and said collection zone being disposed downstream of said manipulation zone in a transport direction of the piece goods running in a direction of the main axis (see Fig. 1); at least one first manipulator (5) or piece goods manipulation, said first manipulator being configured to be movable and change location at least in sections in the direction of the main axis and move between at least one normal position and at least one required position which differs from said normal position (see Fig 10); said first manipulator having a base working region (20) for piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone, allocated to the normal position of said first manipulator, and said first manipulator having, outside a base working region, a required working region for piece goods manipulation allocated to the required position of said first manipulator (see Fig. 11); and at least one optical detection device (40, 41, 42) configured for monitoring the piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone and/or said collection zone.
Regarding independent claim 36, Beer discloses a method for processing piece goods, the method comprising: transporting the piece goods in a transport direction running in a direction of a main axis, over a handling table (6) extending along the main axis, and assembling an ordered group and/or layer of piece goods (see at least para. 0019) by positioning the piece goods, via at least one manipulator (5), by piece goods manipulation in a manipulation zone (first portion of 6) of the handling table; and assembling for grouping and/or layer forming (see at least para. 0019) in a collection zone (middle portion of 6) in the transport direction downstream of the manipulation zone, monitoring the piece goods manipulation in the manipulation zone and/or collection zone by at least one optical detection device (40, 41, 42); detecting an actual data relating to a positioning of the piece goods by the optical detection device (see at least para. 0027-0028 and 0113) and assessing by data comparison of the actual data with reference data (see at least paras. 0029 and 0113); and detecting an erroneous positioning of piece goods based on the data comparison of actual data with the reference data, and correcting the erroneous positioning by moving the first manipulator out of a normal position, to which a base working region for piece goods manipulation in the manipulation zone is assigned, by a movement in the direction of the main axis and into a required position, and correcting the erroneous positioning of the piece goods in an assigned required working region by means of piece goods manipulation (see at least para 0113).
Regarding dependent claims 27-32 and 37, Beer discloses that said optical detection device has at least one camera (40, 41, 42) configured for monitoring the piece goods manipulation, and an optical detection range of said camera has at least one part region of said manipulation zone and/or of said collection zone. Said at least one camera is disposed at a height level above a transport plane of said handling table, and said at least one camera is directed onto said manipulation zone and/or said collection zone from above (see at least para. 0087). Said at least one camera is disposed in a transition section between said manipulation zone and said collection zone (see at least Fig. 1). Said at least one camera is a plurality cameras (40, 41, 42), and at least one of said plurality cameras is disposed at least in a region of said manipulation zone and at least one of said plurality cameras is disposed at least in a region of said collection zone (see at least Figs. 1-9). Beer further discloses an instrumentation and control unit (12), wherein said instrumentation and control unit is communicatively connected to said optical detection device and with said first manipulator, and said instrumentation and control unit is configured for controlling and/or regulating said first manipulator (see at least para. 0040). Said instrumentation and control unit is configured to receive and assess detected image data from said optical detection device, and to control and/or regulate said first manipulator based on assessed image data (see at least para. 0040). The detecting and correcting of the erroneous positioning takes place in an automated manner, as well as being controlled and/or regulated by an instrumentation and control unit (12).
Claim(s) 21-25 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaefer (WO 2016062390 A1). (Paragraph citations directed to provided translation.)
Regarding independent claim 21, Schaefer discloses a device for the processing of piece goods, comprising: at least one handling table (14) extending along a main axis, said at least one handling table having a manipulation zone (see Fig. 11) and a collection zone (see Fig. 11); said manipulation zone and said collection zone being disposed one behind another along the main axis, and said collection zone being disposed downstream of said manipulation zone in a transport direction of the piece goods running in a direction of the main axis (see Fig. 11); at least one first manipulator (4a) or piece goods manipulation, said first manipulator being configured to be movable and change location at least in sections in the direction of the main axis and move between at least one normal position and at least one required position which differs from said normal position (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); said first manipulator having a base working region for piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone, allocated to the normal position of said first manipulator, and said first manipulator having, outside a base working region, a required working region for piece goods manipulation allocated to the required position of said first manipulator (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); and at least one optical detection device (see para. 080) configured for monitoring the piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone and/or said collection zone.
Regarding dependent claims 22-25 and 33-34, Schaefer discloses at least one second manipulator (4b) for piece goods manipulation; said second manipulator being configured to be movable and change location at least in sections in the direction of the main axis and move between at least one normal position of said second manipulator and at least one required position of said second manipulator which differs from said normal position of said second manipulator (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); and said second manipulator having a base working region for piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone, allocated to the normal position of said second manipulator, and a required working region for piece goods manipulation allocated to a required position of said second manipulator, outside a base working region (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”) . Said required working region of said first manipulator and/or of said second manipulator extends at least partially into said collection zone (see at least Fig. 6). At least one rail system (7) configured for a movable carrying of said first manipulator and/or second manipulator, and said first manipulator and/or second manipulator being configured to move on rails of said rail system. Said first manipulator and/or second manipulator are disposed opposite one another in relation to the main axis and can be moved along longitudinal sides of said handling table, extending opposite one another in the direction of the main axis, between respective normal and required positions (see Fig. 11). Said handling table is configured as multi-part handling table having at least one manipulation or grouping table defining said manipulation zone and at least one collection or layer forming table defining said collection zone (see Fig. 11). Said handling table has at least one displacement zone, and said displacement zone is disposed downstream of said collection zone in the transport direction (see Fig. 11).
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (WO 2016062390 A1) in view of Ferreira et al. (US 2024/0092587). Schaefer discloses a device for the processing of piece goods, comprising: at least one handling table (14) extending along a main axis, said at least one handling table having a manipulation zone (see Fig. 11) and a collection zone (see Fig. 11); said manipulation zone and said collection zone being disposed one behind another along the main axis, and said collection zone being disposed downstream of said manipulation zone in a transport direction of the piece goods running in a direction of the main axis (see Fig. 11); at least one first manipulator (4a) or piece goods manipulation, said first manipulator being configured to be movable and change location at least in sections in the direction of the main axis and move between at least one normal position and at least one required position which differs from said normal position (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); said first manipulator having a base working region for piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone, allocated to the normal position of said first manipulator, and said first manipulator having, outside a base working region, a required working region for piece goods manipulation allocated to the required position of said first manipulator (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); and at least one optical detection device (see para. 080) configured for monitoring the piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone and/or said collection zone. Schaefer discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose at least one stationary manipulator for piece goods manipulation having an assigned working region in said manipulation zone. However, Ferreira discloses a similar device which includes at least one stationary manipulator (1) for piece goods manipulation having an assigned working region in a manipulation zone (5) for the purpose of transferring piece goods from a set of conveyors to the manipulation zone. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to include at least one stationary manipulator for piece goods manipulation having an assigned working region in said manipulation zone, as disclosed by Ferreira, for the purpose of transferring piece goods to the manipulation zone.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (WO 2016062390 A1) in view of Kanehara et al. (US 2018/0162656). Schaefer discloses a device for the processing of piece goods, comprising: at least one handling table (14) extending along a main axis, said at least one handling table having a manipulation zone (see Fig. 11) and a collection zone (see Fig. 11); said manipulation zone and said collection zone being disposed one behind another along the main axis, and said collection zone being disposed downstream of said manipulation zone in a transport direction of the piece goods running in a direction of the main axis (see Fig. 11); at least one first manipulator (4a) or piece goods manipulation, said first manipulator being configured to be movable and change location at least in sections in the direction of the main axis and move between at least one normal position and at least one required position which differs from said normal position (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); said first manipulator having a base working region for piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone, allocated to the normal position of said first manipulator, and said first manipulator having, outside a base working region, a required working region for piece goods manipulation allocated to the required position of said first manipulator (see at least para. 063 “return stroke”; “working stroke”); and at least one optical detection device (see para. 080) configured for monitoring the piece goods manipulation in said manipulation zone and/or said collection zone. Schaefer discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose a stop element configured for stopping the piece goods, wherein said stop element is disposed at a rear end of said collection zone relative to the transport direction of the piece goods. However, Kanehara discloses a similar device which includes a stop element (22) configured for stopping piece goods, wherein said stop element is disposed at a rear end of a (7) collection zone relative to the transport direction of the piece goods for the purpose of collecting and transporting the piece goods as a group. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to include a stop element configured for stopping the piece goods, wherein said stop element is disposed at a rear end of said collection zone relative to the transport direction of the piece goods, as disclosed by Kanehara, for the purpose of collecting and transporting the piece goods as a group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagler (US 6,779,647) and Huber (US 8,147,177) disclose systems for grouping piece goods utilizing manipulators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653