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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of robotic arms claimed in claim 55, the retracted picking station claimed in claim 56, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 16 the reference number fir 114B should be corrected, delete the V. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 –
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) 33, 39-43, 52, 54, 57-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Austrheim et al. (NO 344852)
Regarding claim 33, Austrheim et al. teaches a picking station for use in a grid-based storage system, the picking station comprising:
a robotic arm, 41; and
a mount, 31, for mounting the robotic arm to one or more framework members of the storage system, the robotic arm being configured to be received within a single grid cell of the storage system, se figure 6a;
wherein the picking station is configured to access:
i) eight grid cells surrounding the picking station reserved for use by the picking station, see figure 5; and
ii) the eight grid cells are divided into a first zone and a second zone such that each of the zones include one or more grid cells for receiving a delivery container, P1a and P1b shown in figure 8 and one or more grid cells for receiving a respective storage container, P0.
Regarding claim 39, Austrheim et al. teaches the eight grid cells surrounding the picking station are divided into a first zone and a second zone such that each of the zones comprise:
one grid cell for receiving a delivery container, P1a and P1b, and three grid cells for receiving a respective storage container, P0, see figure 5 and figure 8.
Regarding claim 40, Austrheim et al. teaches the mount is directly connected to one or more vertical members of the storage system, see figures 6-8, which shows the mount, 31, resting on the top rail of the vertical storage grid and directly on top of the vertical supports of the storage grid.
Regarding claim 41, Austrheim et al. teaches the mount is directly connected to one or more horizontal members of the storage system, see figures 6-8, which shows the mount, 31, resting on the top rail of the vertical storage grid and directly on top of the horizontal members of the storage grid.
Regarding claim 42, Austrheim et al. teaches the mount comprises:
a plinth, 31, the plinth being configured to be connected to one or more framework members of the storage system and to be received within a grid cell of the storage system, see figures 6-7, where the square base of the vehicle reads on the claimed plinth.
Regarding claim 43, Austrheim et al. teaches the plinth extends across substantially all of the grid cell within which the picking station is received, see figures 6-7.
Regarding claim 52, Austrheim et al. teaches the robotic arm comprises: one or more end effectors, 49.
Regarding claim 54, Austrheim et al. teaches the robotic arm is configured, in use, to select an item from a container received in a first grid cell and to transfer the item to a container received in a second grid cell, see figures 6a and 6b.
Regarding claim 57, Austrheim et al. teaches a storage system comprising: a first set of tracks extending in a first direction; a second set of tracks extending in a second direction transverse to the first direction, to form a grid containing a plurality of grid cells, a framework structure on which the first set of tracks and the second set of tracks are received such that a stack of containers may be stored below each of the plurality of grid cells; and one or more picking stations, see figure 1.
Regarding 58, Austrheim et al. teaches: a plurality of load-handling devices for lifting and moving containers stacked in stacks within the storage system, each of the load-handling devices being configured to move on the tracks above the stacks of containers, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 59, Austrheim et al. teaches the picking station is configured, in use, to pick one or more items from the storage containers received in the first zone and to transfer them into the delivery container of the first zone, see figures 6a and 6b.
Regarding claim 60, Austrheim et al. teaches a plurality of load- handling devices are configured to remove one or more storage containers from the second zone, see abstract.
Regarding claim 61, Austrheim et al. teaches a load-handling device is configured to remove the delivery container from the second zone, see abstract.
Claim(s) 33-37, 55, 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hognaland (US 2020/0031575).
Regarding claim 33, Hognaland teaches a picking station for use in a grid-based storage system, the picking station comprising:
a robotic arm, 42; and
a mount for mounting the robotic arm to one or more framework members of the storage system, the robotic arm being configured to be received within a single grid cell of the storage system, se figures 5 and 6;
wherein the picking station is configured to access:
i) eight grid cells surrounding the picking station reserved for use by the picking station, see figure 5; and
ii) the eight grid cells are divided into a first zone and a second zone such that each of the zones include one or more grid cells for receiving a delivery container, 38, and one or more grid cells for receiving a respective storage container, 30.
Regarding claim 34, Hognaland teaches the mount comprises: a support member which extends below a surface of a grid of the storage system, see figure 6.
Regarding claim 35-37, Hognaland teaches the support member is connected to one or more framework members of the storage system, including the vertical and horizontal members, see figure 6 and paragraphs 0067.
Regarding claim 55, Hognaland teaches the picking station comprises: a plurality of robotic arms.
Regarding claim 62, Hognaland teaches a plurality of load- handling devices, 40, are configured to deposit one or more storage containers, 30, into grid locations in the second zone, see paragraph 0026 and 0033+.
Regarding claim 63, Hognaland teaches a load-handling device is configured to deposit a delivery container, 38, into the second zone, see paragraphs 0047+.
Regarding claim 64, Hognaland teaches the picking station is configured to pick one or more items from the storage containers received in the second zone and to transfer the picked items into the delivery container of the second zone, see paragraph 0043.
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.
Claims 49-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hognaland (US 2020/031575) in view of Stadie (WO 2015/185628).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 49, Hognaland teaches a storage control and communication device, see paragraph 008, but does not specifically teach the features claimed. Stadie teaches a method and apparatus for controlling the movement of transporting device, wherein the apparatus comprises: a computing device, the computing device including one or more processing units, one or more volatile data storage units, one or more non-volatile data storage units and a network interface, see figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the computing device of Stadie with the apparatus of Hognaland in order to achieve the predictable result of easily controlling all aspects of the picking station and storage system.
Regarding claim 50, Hognaland teaches a storage control and communication device, see paragraph 008, but does not specifically teach the features claimed. Stadie teaches a method and apparatus for controlling the movement of transporting device, wherein the apparatus is communicably coupled to a computing device, the computing device comprising: one or more processing units, one or more volatile data storage units, one or more non- volatile data storage units and a network interface, see figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combined the computing device of Stadie with the apparatus of Hognaland in order to achieve the predictable result of easily controlling all aspects of the picking station and storage system.
Regarding claim 51, it would be obvious in the combination taught by Hognaland and Stadie, to use the controller apparatus of Stadie in the system of Hognaland to send signals to the picking station to control operation of the robotic arm of Hognaland.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 44-48, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland in view of Kalouche (US 2023/0356387).
Regarding 44, Hognaland does not teach the picking station further comprises: one or more cameras. Kalouche teaches a picking arm, 206, with a camera, 262, for generating images of the products stored in the containers, see paragraph 0086. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the camera of Kalouche with the picking station and arm of Hognaland in order to control the picking arm to pick the correct items from containers.
Regarding claim 45, Kalouche teaches one or more cameras, 262, mounted above the picking station, see figure 9B.
Regarding claim 46, Kalouche teaches one or more cameras mounted on the robotic arm, see figure 9B.
Regarding claim 47. Hognaland does not teach the mount comprises: one or more optical sensors. Kalouche teaches a picking arm, 206, with optical sensor, 262, for generating images of the products stored in the containers, see paragraph 0086. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensor of Kalouche with the picking station and arm of Hognaland in order to control the picking arm to pick the correct items from containers.
Regarding claim 48, Hognaland does not teach one or more barcode scanners are mounted on the robotic arm. Kalouche teaches a picking arm, 206, with barcode scanner, 264, for scanning barcodes of the products stored in the containers, see paragraph 0120. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the scanner of Kalouche with the picking station and arm of Hognaland in order to control the picking arm to pick the correct items from containers.
Regarding claim 53, Hognaland does not teach the robotic arm is configured to exchange a first end effector for a second effector. Kalouche teaches a robotic arm with an end effector with a quick-change mechanism, see paragraph 0102 and figure 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the robotic arm of Hognaland with the quick-change mechanism taught by Kalouche in order to achieve the predictable result of replacing the end effector when needed.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland in view of Gjerdevik et al. (US 2023/0131214).
Regarding claim 38, Hognaland does not teach the support member is connected to a floor of the storage system. Gjerdevik et al. teaches a picking station with a picking robot mounted on a support, where the support is connected to the floor, see figure 8. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to mount the support of the picking robot of Hognaland to the floor of the storage system, as taught by Gjerdevik et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of securely supporting the picking arm on the stable floor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 56 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.
After an extensive search of the prior art the examiner was unable to find any teaching, either alone or in combination of a picking station that is configured to be retracted below the surface of the storage system. Hognaland and Austrheim, relied upon in the rejection above, are prime example of the state of the prior art. Neither of these references teach the retraction, as claimed. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify either of these references to teach this claimed feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included in the file to show further examples of storage systems with picking stations similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
4 March 2026