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 § 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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno (US 6,951,272).
With respect to claims 1 & 18, Ohno discloses an order picking system for transportation and stacked provision of piece goods comprising:
a feeding device comprising a suspension conveyor 31, 100, 131 configured for providing piece goods 6 and a delivery station 800 (300/400) configured for delivering piece goods from a suspension conveyor to
a stacking device 211, 212, 212 configured for stacking conveyed piece goods, wherein piece goods are stacked vertically on a stacking spot 227 by a stacking device.
With respect to claims 2 & 19, Ohno discloses a stacking device that comprises one delivery device 212 configured to release and transfer one piece of piece good after another by gravity to a stacking spot to form a stack of piece good .
With respect to claims 3 & 20, Ohno discloses that a delivery device comprises one delivery element 212 (or 226) which is at least one of following: movably arranged, pivotable, and displaceable.
With respect to claim 4, Ohno discloses that one delivery device comprises two delivery elements 212, 212 which are arranged to be at least one of the following: movable, pivotable, symmetrically movable, and symmetrically pivotable, so that a respective piece good is transferred to a stacking spot by two delivery elements.
With respect to claim 5, Ohno discloses that two delivery elements 212, 212 are designed as sliders which are configured to be moved horizontally or
With respect to claim 16, Ohno discloses that a suspension conveyor comprises at least one out of a following:
With respect to claim 17, Ohno discloses that a delivery station 800 (300/400) is designed as a discharge device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Achelpohl (US 5,803,706).
Ohno does not disclose two transverse conveyors. Achelpohl discloses two delivery elements 14, 15 that are designed as transverse conveyors which are configured to be driven and accelerated or decelerated and are configured to be moved at least one of horizontally moved, moved in opposite directions, and moved along a conveying direction. Achelpohl further discloses transverse conveyors that each comprise a movable end 17, 16 and a stationary end 18, 20 and are configured by moving movable ends in opposite directions (FIG. 1) along a conveying direction to position and generate a gap 25, through which a piece of piece good 2 is adapted to be discharged onto a stacking spot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to include two, transvers conveyors having a movable end and a stationary end, as taught by Achelpohl, which provides precise placement of piece goods on a stack and prevents a leading edge of a piece good from slipping as it falls from delivery elements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Ward (US 6,827,545).
Ohno does not disclose a stacking spot arranged on a delivery conveyor. Ward discloses a stacking spot arranged on a delivery conveyor 22, with a delivery conveyor configured to deliver a stack 14. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to provide a stacking spot on a delivery conveyor, as taught by Ward, to thereby accommodate piece goods that are slipper or otherwise unstable during stacking.
Claim(s) 9, 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Ward (US 6,827,545) and further in view of Grantham (US 4,002,560).
With respect to claim 9, Ohno does not disclose a delivery conveyor that comprises two delivery lines. Grantham discloses a delivery conveyor comprises at least two delivery lines 180, 182, 184 and movable ends of transverse conveyors are configured to be moved along a conveying direction in such a way that the gap above a stacking spot is generated on one of the at least two delivery lines. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to provide two delivery lines, as taught by Grantham, “selectively allowing an article to proceed, through previous ones of the conveyor assemblies, to a preselected one of the conveyor assemblies for discharging therefrom, regardless of the value of the article's preselected parameter.”
With respect to claim 10, Ohno discloses that a delivery device, e.g. stacking device, is vertically offset, arranged above a stacking spot and a piece good is transferred to form a free stack.
With respect to claim 11, Ohno discloses a stacking device comprises a lifting device 221, which is arranged below a delivery device and is configured to be vertically moved in a direction of a conveyor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Ward and Grantham and further in view of Destro (WO 2021/011978) (previously cited).
Ohno does not disclose a stop. Destro discloses a stop 37 which is configured to position a piece good 10a…10e delivered by a delivery device 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to include a stop, as taught by Destro, which performs targeted stops of piece goods thereby securing the stack on the delivery line for further processing such as wrapping with a band.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Gammerler (US 8,356,967).
Ohno does not disclose a measuring device. Gammerler discloses a measuring device 140 configured to measure the height of the stack and/or for detecting whether a piece good is located on the delivery device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to include a measuring device configured to measure the height of the stack and/or for detecting whether a piece good is located on the delivery device, as taught by Gammerler, which maintains ‘the orientation and levelness of the stack relatively horizontal as the stack heigh” grows.
Claim(s) 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Destro which discloses that it “is particularly favorable if a camera is arranged above the goods delivery device storage shelf. In this way, the orientation of the goods in the goods delivery device storage shelf can be detected.” Destro teaches that monitoring “an orientation of goods can be recorded and, if necessary, changed so that the goods can subsequently be stacked in the desired manner. For example, items of clothing can in turn be stacked in such a way that their upper ends lie one on top of the other or in such a way that an upper end of one item of clothing lies over a lower end of another item of clothing, and so on.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ohno to include a monitoring device, which is configured to monitor at least one of the layout of a stack in a top view and an outline of a stack in a side view, as taught by Destro, thereby insuring upper items overlay lower items in a stack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights