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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “a second supporting frame” and “a second guide mechanism". There is improper antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as a first supporting frame and a first guide mechanism have yet to be defined and it is unclear if these elements are part of the claim 16 claim scope.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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; or
(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 1-5, 8-12 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Borders et al. (“Borders”)(US 2020/0207546 A1).
Borders (fig. 1-5, 9-10) teaches a warehousing system, comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a workstation area comprising at least one sorting station (near 122, 128; para. 59);
a goods shelf parking area configured to park a goods shelf (fig. 1, 9 showing area 106 with multiple shelves),
a multifunctional area comprising at least one storage position, and the at least one storage position being configured to store a container transferred from the at least one sorting station or the goods shelf (mobile platform 140; para. 60-74 teaching that platform contains stack buffer 144 and area 148 for receiving and storing items from sorting station and goods shelf) and
a container loading and unloading device configured to transfer the container among the workstation area, the goods shelf parking area, and the multifunctional area (fig. 1, 3, 9, 10 showing X-Y-Z gantry near 146 and robotic arm near 150; para. 58, 64-74 teaching gantry and robotic arm for loading and unloading items to respective areas via moving platform 140);
(re: claim 2) wherein the multifunctional area is located above, below or next to the at least one sorting station (fig. 9).
(re: claims 3-5, 8-11 and 21) Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, Examiner notes that no controller elements have been claimed and that the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: claim 3) wherein the at least one storage position is configured to store the container, and a demand frequency of goods in the container within a preset time period exceeds a demand frequency threshold;
(re: claim 4) wherein the at least one storage position of the multifunctional area is configured to store the container, and goods in the container are associated with designated goods;
(re: claim 5) wherein sorting of goods in the container has been completed, and the multifunctional area is configured to store the container in at least one of the following cases:
the container loading and unloading device is not free to transfer the container;
a goods shelf for storing the container has not yet reached the goods shelf parking area; or the goods are selected in an order to be sorted;
(re: claim 8) wherein the container loading and unloading device is further configured to perform a tallying operation;
(re: claim 9) wherein within a preset time period, when a demand frequency of goods in a first container is greater than a demand frequency of goods in a second container, and a position of the second container on the goods shelf is more convenient for fetching and placing than the first container, the container loading and unloading device is configured to move the second container from the goods shelf to the multifunctional area for temporary storage, transfers the first container from a current position to an original position of the second container, and transfers the second container from the multifunctional area to an original position of the first container;
(re: claim 10) wherein when a demand frequency of goods in the container within a preset time period exceeds a demand frequency threshold, the container loading and unloading device is configured to transfer the container from a current goods shelf to a new goods shelf, and the new goods shelf is configured to specially store the container in which the demand frequency of the goods within the preset time period exceeds the demand frequency threshold;
(re: claim 11) wherein the container loading and unloading device is configured to put an empty container back to a goods shelf for storing empty containers or the multifunctional area;
(re: claim 21) wherein the multifunctional area is configured to store an empty container, and the container loading and unloading device is configured to transfer the empty container of the multifunctional area to the at least one sorting station in case of shelving of a full container load or a shortage of externally supplied containers.
(para. 51, 64-75 teaching that multifunctional area is configured as storage area during loading and unloading process and includes various sensors for real-time item tracking and tallying of weights, wherein Examiner regards said storage area capable of storing goods/containers of various types as claimed, e.g., empty containers, designated goods, goods that are selected in an order to be sorted and/or goods with varying demand frequency in relation to a threshold).
Borders further teaches-
(re: claim 12) wherein the multifunctional area comprises a plurality of storage positions, and the plurality of storage positions are arranged at intervals in a height direction, arranged at intervals in a horizontal direction, or arranged at intervals in both the height direction and the horizontal direction (fig. 9 showing storage positions arranged in intervals in both a height and horizontal direction);
(re: certain elements of claim 14) wherein the warehousing system comprises a plurality of sorting stations, and the plurality of sorting stations are arranged at intervals in a horizontal direction (fig. 5, 9 and para. 59 teaching that sorting area has multiple areas on a roller/multi-directional zone for receiving goods for sorting).
(re: certain elements of claim 15) wherein each of the plurality of sorting stations comprises a first supporting frame and a first guide mechanism arranged on the first supporting frame, and the first guide mechanism is configured to assist the container loading and unloading device in fetching and placing the container (Id. wherein multi-directional conveyor elements can be regarded as a guide mechanism with a respective supporting frame);
(re: claim 16) wherein the at least one storage position comprises a second supporting frame and a second guide mechanism arranged on the second supporting frame, and the second guide mechanism is configured to assist the container loading and unloading device in fetching and placing the container (fig. 9 showing that storage positions in multifunctional area have multiple supporting frames with guide mechanisms, i.e., roller elements);
(re: claim 17) wherein the container loading and unloading device comprises a portal frame and a loading and unloading component, and the loading and unloading component is arranged on the portal frame; and
the loading and unloading component is configured to move in at least one of the following manners:
the loading and unloading component is configured to move in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction relative to the portal frame (fig. 3, 9 showing XYZ gantry 146);
(re: claim 18) wherein the loading and unloading component is configured to move in the X-axis direction, the Y-axis direction, and the Z-axis direction relative to the portal frame, and the container loading and unloading device further comprises:
a movable vertical column arranged on the portal frame and configured to be controlled by an X-axis driving mechanism to move in the X-axis direction relative to the portal frame (fig. 3, 9 showing that XYZ gantry includes a vertical element movable in X-axis along upper portal frame and that XYZ gantry);
the loading and unloading component is arranged on the movable vertical column and is configured to be controlled by a Z-axis driving mechanism to move in the Z-axis direction relative to the movable vertical column (fig. 3 showing “fingers tips” to pick and place goods/containers; para. 64-66 teaching that gantry “moves up and down within the moving platform” and picks up as well as stacks goods using a hook-based mechanism or electromagnet);
(re: claim 19) wherein the loading and unloading component comprises:
a base arranged on the movable vertical column; and
a loading and unloading member arranged on the base and configured to be controlled by a Y-axis driving mechanism to move in the Y-axis direction relative to the base (fig. 3, 9 showing base on bottom of vertical column near 146, wherein teaching of XYZ gantry makes a Y-axis driving mechanism inherent);
(re: claim 20) wherein the container loading and unloading device further comprises:
an X-axis guide mechanism arranged on the portal frame and configured to guide the movable vertical column to move in the X-axis direction relative to the portal frame; and/or
a Z-axis guide mechanism arranged on the movable vertical column and configured to guide the loading and unloading component to move in the Z-axis direction relative to the movable vertical column (para. 64-66 teaching gantry is configured for up and down motion thus a Z-axis guide mechanism is inherent with vertical motion).
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 of this title, 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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (“Borders”)(US 2020/0207546 A1) in view of Winkler (US 2023/0242338).
Borders as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 13) wherein the warehousing system further comprises an automatic handling device, and the automatic handling device is configured to move the goods shelf into or out of the goods shelf parking area.
Here, it is noted that Borders already teaches a warehousing system with goods shelves in various configurations in the parking area (Cf. fig. 8 and 9) and is merely silent on the handling element.
Winkler teaches that it is well-known in the automated material handling/sorting arts to use mobile rack elements in combination with automated handling elements to allow the system to be scaled more effectively and to thus increase performance (fig. 3 showing stackable rack units 11; para. 3-18, 39-42 teaching that freely movable stackable rack units allows for the capacity and performance of the warehouse to be easily increased, wherein the configuration of the rack units can be carried out in an automated fashion via automatic handling machines 7 shown in fig. 8).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., automatic handling elements and stackable shelving units) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Borders for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
February 11, 2026