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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “configured for use automated storage and retrieval system” in lines 1-2, which appears to be a typo.
Claim 15 recites “delivery loading fame” in line 2, which appears to be a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “that predetermined location” in the second-to-last line, but it is not clear whether this refers to the first group of predetermined locations or to the second group of predetermined locations. Claims 2-20 are dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the one or more processors”, which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kropp (US 2019/0210799 A1).
Consider claim 1. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above, Kropp teaches a delivery container handling apparatus configured for use automated storage and retrieval system, the delivery container handling apparatus comprising: a gantry (54); a delivery container handler (48) including a first pushing arm (84) and being received on the gantry such that the delivery container handler is moveable on the gantry; the delivery container handling apparatus being configured, in use, to: move the delivery container handler on the gantry to one of a first group of predetermined locations (30) to receive a delivery container from an automated storage and retrieval system; move the delivery container handler to one of a second group of predetermined locations (52) selected relative to a delivery loading frame; and activate the first pushing arm to move a delivery container into a first position for a delivery loading frame at that predetermined location relative to the delivery loading frame (see fig. 4).
Consider claim 2. Kropp teaches that the first group of predetermined locations comprises: locations selected based on an output of one or more spurs (input shaft 30) from an automated storage and retrieval system.
Consider claim 3. Kropp teaches that the second group of predetermined locations comprises: a plurality of locations (52) selected to be adjacent to a respective plurality of positions within a delivery loading frame (50, see fig. 5).
Consider claim 4. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handling apparatus is configured such that the gantry will move the delivery container handler in a first and/or a second direction (y, z), and the pushing arm of the delivery container handler will move the delivery container in a third direction (x), wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are orthogonal.
Consider claims 5 and 6. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above, Kropp teaches that the delivery container handling apparatus comprises: one or more optical sensors (134) and one or more processor units (128), the one or more processors being configured in communication with the one or more processor units. Kropp’s apparatus is capable of performing the recited functional language: processing data generated by the one or more optical sensors to determine a position of the delivery container handler relative to a delivery loading frame, and processing data generated by the one or more optical sensors to determine a position of one or more features of the delivery loading frame. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 7. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler comprises: a retractable element (82) configured to be selectively activated in use to retain a delivery container at a predetermined position on the delivery container handler.
Consider claim 8. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler is configured to, in use, be inclined relative to the delivery container handling apparatus (see claim 12).
Consider claim 10. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler comprises: a second pushing arm (82) configured with the delivery container handling apparatus to, in use, after the first pushing arm has pushed the delivery container into a delivery loading frame, be activated such that the second pushing arm will move the delivery container from a first position within a delivery loading frame to a second position within the delivery loading frame.
Consider claim 11. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler comprises: a detector (134). Kropp’s detector is capable of performing the recited functional language: detecting any objects which protrude from a top of a delivery container when the delivery container is present in the delivery container handler. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 12. Kropp teaches that the first pushing arm comprises: a retractable region (region occupied by 70 in fig. 4) configured, in use, to be retracted when a delivery container is received from an automated storage and retrieval system.
Consider claim 13. Kropp teaches that the retractable region of the first pushing arm is configured, in use, to be extended such that the retractable region pushes a delivery container when the first pushing arm is activated (see arrow 78 in fig. 4).
Consider claim 14. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handling apparatus comprises: one or more delivery loading frames (50) configured and adapted to receive a plurality of delivery containers.
Consider claim 16. Kropp teaches a delivery container handling apparatus according to claim 1 (see prior art rejection above), in combination with: a delivery loading frame (50).
Consider claim 17. Kropp teaches that the second group of predetermined locations comprises: a plurality of locations (52) selected to be adjacent to a respective plurality of positions within a delivery loading frame (50).
Consider claim 18. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handling apparatus is configured such that the gantry will move the delivery container handler in a first and/or a second direction (y, z), and the pushing arm of the delivery container handler will move the delivery container in a third direction (x), wherein the first direction, the second direction and the third direction are orthogonal.
Consider claim 19. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handling apparatus comprises: one or more optical sensors (134) and one or more processor units (128), the one or more processors being configured in communication with the one or more processor units. Kropp’s apparatus is capable of performing the recited functional language: processing data generated by the one or more optical sensors to determine a position of the delivery container handler relative to a delivery loading frame. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Consider claim 20. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler comprises: a retractable element (82) configured to be selectively activated in use to retain a delivery container at a predetermined position on the delivery container handler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kropp (US 2019/0210799 A1) in view of Delaporte (US 2019/0210221 A1).
Consider claim 9. Kropp teaches that the delivery container handler is rotatably coupled to the delivery container handling apparatus (see claim 12), but does not explicitly teach an actuator as specifically claimed. Delaporte teaches that a delivery container handler (11) rotatably coupled to a delivery container handling apparatus (109) and the delivery container handler comprises: an actuator (54, 95, 97) which is configured to, in use, be activated to incline the support relative to the apparatus (see fig. 7). It would have been obvious to modify Kropp’s delivery container handler with an actuator as taught by Delaporte in order to provide an automatic actuation means to drive rotation of the delivery container handler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. The attached PTO-892 lists references which teach various delivery container handling apparatuses having pushing/pulling arms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights