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 .
Specification
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 2, should read “articles (2);”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 12 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the language “wherein the steps v) are carried out alternately with the respective first and last remaining order line (AZ) in the list” is non-sensical and thus indefinite. That is, it is unclear-- even in light of the specification-- how “steps v)” can be conducted “alternately” as v) contains the steps of selecting an order line and then selecting one further order line of the list. This claim is regarded as unexaminable.
Claim 12 is also regarded as non-sensical and unexaminable. Claim 12 describes “wherein an article group is extended by articles which are not contained in the analysis quantity” if the condition “a loading aid (9a) retrieved from the long-term store (3) can thereby be completely emptied during the transfer of the articles” is satisfied. However, Examiner notes that this condition appears always to be satisfied as a loading aid is normally completely emptied during transfer of articles, thus it is unclear what specific step or limitation Applicant is defining.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the limitation "a third conveying system". This limitation appears to have improper antecedent basis as it is unclear if the system already comprises a first and second conveying system.
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 1-3, 9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler (US 2017/0278055).
Winkler teaches a storage and picking system comprising:
(re: base claim 13) a long-term store (12) for providing the articles (fig. 1 showing Picking Warehouse 12 connected to Buffer Warehouse 16; para. 52);
a short-term buffer (16) for buffering the articles (para. 54);
a transfer system for retrieving the articles from the long-term store and for transferring the articles from the long-term store to the short-term buffer (para. 55-56 teaching load-handling, picking and conveyor elements for transferring articles);
an order-processing computer (fig. 3 and para. 83-85) for
a) acquiring a plurality of orders each with at least one order line, wherein each order line contains an article type and a number of the articles of this article type covered by the order (fig. 2 showing example picking order 40 with order lines 42; para. 81-82 teaching consolidating a plurality of orders into a data set);
b) defining an analysis quantity comprising any number of orders (Id. wherein analysis quantity can be regarded as quantity/number of orders in data set including certain types of articles; see also fig. 11);
c) sorting the order lines of the analysis quantity according to a first sorting criterion in a list (fig. 8 showing Table 110 showing listing of order lines that have been summed by article and that can be sorted via “Order Probability” and ‘Value” of said article in the buffer storage; para. 112-127, 139-143, 148 teaching that analysis for determining article quantities to be transferred to buffer warehouse from picking warehouse involves selecting an order line and at least one further order line and combining said order lines to form an article group of the same article, wherein Table 8 line one shows that different orders lines with article type “445920” have been selected and assigned to the “445920” article group—thus analysis quantity can be regarded as number of orders containing the “445920” article);
d) selecting an order line sorted in the list which has not yet been selected and, if present, selecting at least one further order line of the orders of the analysis quantity which contains the same article type as the selected order line (Id.), and
e) combining the order lines selected in accordance with point d) from different orders to form article groups, wherein each article group comprises only articles of one article type in each case (Id.);
wherein the order-processing computer is further configured to repeat points d) and e) until all order lines have been selected and assigned to an article group (Id. with seventh column in Table 110 and para. 117, 143 teaching that all order lines have been selected and summed to arrive at an article filling order total for said respective article group), and
wherein the transfer system is configured to carry out the retrieval of the articles from the long-term store and the transfer of the articles from the long-term store to the short-term buffer until all articles of each article type contained in the analysis quantity have been transferred from the long-term store to the short-term buffer (fig. 11 steps S20, S22 and S24 teaching steps of Determining Buffer Quantities that are ‘article specific’; Generating a Filling Order for Buffer Warehouse and then Filling/Replenishing Buffer Warehouse; para. 143-145);
(re: claim 14) wherein the long-term store has a plurality of stationary storage racks and at least one automatically operated storage and retrieval device for storing the articles in the storage racks and/or retrieving the articles from the storage racks (para. 54, 69-72, 88 teaching use racks and a variety of storage-load supports, such as trays, bags, pallets, or the like, wherein picking can be conducted manually or in an automated, e.g., with an automated small-part warehouse element);
(re: claim 16) wherein the transfer system comprises
a transfer station (fig. 1 showing picking warehouse including a picking station 14),
a first conveying system connecting the long-term store and the transfer station (para. 69-72 teaching that picking station may include dynamic article systems that presents article to picker via a conveying system), and
a second conveying system connecting the transfer station and the short-term buffer (para. 54-56, 70-72 teaching that picking warehouse can be implemented by shelvings, automated small-part warehouse, flow racks, carousel racks and that various conveyor types can be integrated into system to transport articles, such as belt or overhead conveyors, to the buffer area);
(re: claim 17) wherein the storage and picking system comprises
a picking station (14) and a
(re: claims 1, 9) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the device cited above (see e.g., fig. 8; para. 112-127, 139-145).
Winkler further teaches-
(re: claim 2) wherein the sorting in step iv) additionally comprises the sorting of the order lines of the analysis quantity according to a second sorting criterion (para. 124 teaching that sortation of article list/order lines can be performed with additional parameters, such as volume, dimension and weight);
(re: claim 3) wherein the sorting in step iv) additionally comprises the sorting of the order lines of the orders of the analysis quantity according to at least one third sorting criterion (Id.);
(re: claim 11) wherein an article group is extended by a predeterminable number of articles which are not contained in the analysis quantity (para. 128 teaching that buffer quantities can be increased to fill compartments/containers).
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 4-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (US 2017/0278055) in view of Winkler (“’843)(US 9,014,843) and legal precedent.
Winkler as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein the number of articles covered by the order is provided as the first sorting criterion, and the order lines are sorted in step iv) starting with the largest number of articles of an order;
(re: claim 5) wherein a priority of the orders is provided as the first sorting criterion, and the order lines are sorted in sequence from high priority to low priority in step iv);
(re: claim 6) wherein the number of articles of one article type contained in the analysis quantity is provided as the first sorting criterion, and the order lines are sorted in step iv) starting with the largest number of articles of one article type;
(re: claim 7) wherein a priority of the orders is provided as the second sorting criterion.
(re: claim 8) wherein the number of articles per order is provided as the second sorting criterion;
(re: claim 15) wherein the short-term buffer comprises an overhead conveying system for suspended transport of the articles by means of transport carriers or hanging bags.
Here, it is noted that Winkler already teaches it is well-known to use a variety of sorting criteria during buffer transfer analysis and that the number of articles as well as article type are key parameters (para. 122-124, 141) and that an overhead conveying system with transport carriers is a well-known variant in the storage and conveying arts (para. 54, 69-72, 88).
‘843 further teaches that using overhead conveyors is preferable in warehouse sorting (col. 6, ln. 25-34) and that using order priority as a criterion allows the system to react faster (fig. 7; col. 4, ln. 45-65 and col. 13, ln. 38-col. 14, ln. 10 teaching that ability to use processing priority as a parameter allows for more flexibility).
Indeed, the claimed features relating to selecting sorting criterion, such as order priority, number of articles of one article type and/or number of articles per order, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the automated material handling/sorting arts as demonstrated above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
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 and in legal precedent as described above. 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 Winkler 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 6, 2026