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
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 21 recites “coupled the trolley”. Correction is suggested to “coupled to the trolley”. 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 1-15 and 19-21 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 “the containers” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 6 recites “the cargo area” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 19 recites “the containers” which lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 2-15, 20, and 21 are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 13-15, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1).
Consider claim 1. Risser teaches a gantry, comprising: a pair of substantially parallel beams (30, 32) in a first direction; a rail (70) mounted between the beams and being moveable along the beams; and a trolley (72) coupled to and moveable along the rail in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the trolley supporting a hoist (226) including a plate (266) having an actuatable gripping device (262) for selectively engaging and releasing the containers, the plate being moveable in a vertical direction relative to the trolley between a retracted position and an extended position to lift and lower the containers (via 232 and 244, see paragraph [0063]).
Consider claim 10. Risser teaches that the gripping device comprises at least one suction cup (see paragraph [0057]).
Consider claim 13. Risser teaches that the gripping device is a mechanical gripping device comprising slidable or pivotable hooks, a latch, a grapple (262), and/or a pivotable flap.
Consider claim 14. Risser teaches that an underside of the trolley defines a cavity to receive the plate when the plate is in the retracted position (see fig. 13).
Consider claim 15. Risser teaches that the gantry is arranged to be entirely spaced away from a bed of a cargo area (see fig. 10).
Consider claim 17. Risser teaches an automated gantry, comprising: a base including a pair of support legs (30, 32) and a cross-rail (70) extending between the pair of support legs, the base being moveable in a first horizontal direction; a trolley (72) moveable along the cross-rail in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction; and a hoist (226) coupled to the trolley, the hoist including a plate (266) having a gripping device (262) for selectively engaging and releasing containers, the plate being moveable in a vertical direction relative to the trolley between a retracted position and an extended position to lift and lower the containers (via 232 and 244, see paragraph [0063]).
Consider claim 18. Risser teaches that the hoist comprises arms (arms of 240, see figs. 12 and 15) extending laterally away from the trolley, and wherein the plate is suspended from the arms by cables.
Consider claim 19. Risser teaches an automated gantry, comprising: first and second beams (30, 32) elevated above a ground surface and extending in a first horizontal direction; a rail (70) extending between first and second carriages (62, 64) movably mounted to the first and second beams, respectively, such that the rail is moveable along the first and second beams in the first horizontal direction; a trolley (72) coupled to and moveable along the rail in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first direction; and at least one hoist (226) coupled to the trolley, the at least one hoist including a plate (266) having an actuatable gripping device (262) for selectively engaging and releasing the containers, the plate being moveable in a vertical direction relative to the trolley between a retracted position and an extended position to lift and lower the containers (via 232 and 244, see paragraph [0063]).
Consider claim 21. Risser teaches a picking arm (arm of 262) coupled to the trolley and arranged to pick items from containers located underneath the rail.
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 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1) in view of Hung et al. (US 2020/0131725 A1), hereafter referred to as Hung.
Consider claims 2, 3, and 9. Risser does not explicitly teach a processor, a position sensor, and an imaging device. Hung teaches one or more processors (160), a position sensor (140, see paragraph [0049]), and an imaging device (140). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Risser’s gantry with a processor, a position sensor, and an imaging device as taught by Hung in order to automatically control the device to improve safety for the operator. The processor of Risser in view of Hung is capable of performing the recited functional language: controlling movement of the rail in the first direction, movement of the trolley in the second direction, movement of the plate between the retracted position and the extended position, and/or actuation of the gripping device. Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1) in view of Weddel (US 10,336,587 B1).
Consider claim 4. Risser teaches a base including support legs (28A-28D) supporting the beams, but does not explicitly teach that the support legs are adjustable to adjust a height of the beams relative to a ground surface. Weddel teaches a base including adjustable support legs (20) arranged to adjust a height of beams (24, 26) relative to a ground surface (see fig. 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Risser’s support legs to be adjustable as taught by Weddel in order to be used with vehicles of different sizes.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1) in view of Bastian, II (US 2016/0068357 A1), hereafter referred to as Bastian.
Consider claims 5, 6, and 8. Risser does not explicitly teach a stabilizer as specifically claimed. Bastian teaches at least one beam (202) comprising a stabilizer (210) comprising a compliant bumper (212), the beams connected to a base (204) at a pivot axis (proximate 614, see fig. 6) such that the beams are rotatable about the pivot axis to adjust a height of a leading end of the beams and, in turn, engage the stabilizer against a ceiling of the cargo area or disengage the stabilizer from the ceiling of the cargo area (see fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Risser’s beams with a stabilizer as taught by Bastian in order to minimize unintended movement of the gantry to improve safety.
Consider claim 7. Risser teaches weight (weight of the rail and trolley) coupled to the beams, the weight being moveable along a length of the beams to rotate the beams about the pivot axis.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2019/0030730 A1), hereafter referred to as Tanaka.
Consider claims 11 and 12. Risser teaches a suction cup (see paragraph [0051]), but does not explicitly teach the claimed specifics of the suction cup. Tanaka teaches a first suction cup (left 37 in fig. 2), a second suction cup (right 37 in fig. 2), a first fluid line section (left 33 in fig. 2) in communication with the first suction cup and isolated (via 36) from the second suction cup, and a second fluid line section (right 33 in fig. 2) in communication with the second suction cup and isolated (via 36) from the first suction cup. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Risser’s suction cup to have a first suction cup, a second suction cup, a first fluid line, and a second fluid line as taught by Tanaka in order to lift a heavier article or to provide redundancy in case of a loss of suction in a single suction cup.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Risser (US 2005/0105996 A1).
Consider claim 20. Risser does not explicitly teach a plurality of hoists. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Risser’s at least one hoist to be a plurality of hoists, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). One would have been motivated to duplicate Risser’s hoist in order to lift multiple articles simultaneously to decrease total loading time.
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 gantries for loading and unloading vehicles.
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