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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 6-9 have been amended. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-10 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 17th, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a discharge aisle". A discharge aisle was previously recited in claim 1, therefore it is unclear if this is introducing a second discharge aisle or if this is the same discharge aisle that was previously recited in claim 1.
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 1, 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) in view of Schafer (US 2009/0129902).
Regarding claim 1, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches a system for vertically sorting articles (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-7) comprising:
a racking (Fig. 1 #30A, 30B) extending along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2 longitudinal direction of #30A, 30B) and having a plurality of sorting levels (Fig. 5 plurality of levels #60 “shelf”), each sorting level being configured to receive at least one sorting container (Fig. 5 each “shelf” #60 configured to receive #40 “storage bin”),
an automated sorting device (Fig. 5 #120 “vehicle”) configured to displace an article from an article reception level (Fig. 2 level of #20 “induction station”) to a sorting level (Fig. 5 level of #60) in order to set it down in a sorting container (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-7, Paragraph 0034 lines 1-6),
an automated discharge device (Fig. 5 #120 “vehicle”) configured to take a sorting container (Fig. 5 #40 “storage bin”) from a sorting level (Fig. 5 level #60 “shelf”) and displace it (Paragraph 0034 lines 7-18),
a sorting aisle (Fig. 2 #35) located on one side of the racking (Fig. 2 #35 located on one side of #30A and one side of #30B), said sorting aisle being adjacent and parallel to the racking (Fig. 2 #35 adjacent and parallel to #30A, 30B), the sorting device being configured to be displaced in said sorting aisle (Paragraph 0029 lines 7-8).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) lacks teaching an automated discharge device configured to take a sorting container from a sorting level and displace it to a discharge level, and a discharge aisle adjacent and parallel to the racking and arranged on the other side of the racking from the sorting aisle, the discharge device being configured to be displaced in said discharge aisle.
Schafer (US 2009/0129902) teaches a system for vertically sorting articles (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) comprising an automated discharge device (Fig. 2 #26’) configured to take a sorting container (Fig. 2 #52) from a sorting level (Fig. 2 #46) and displace it to a discharge level (Fig. 2 level of #28), and a discharge aisle (Fig. 2 aisle of #26’ facing #24) adjacent and parallel to the racking (Fig. 1A aisle of #26’ adjacent and parallel to #20) and arranged on the other side of the racking from the sorting aisle (Fig. 1A aisle of #26’ on other side of #20 as aisle of #33), the discharge device (Fig. 2 #26’) being configured to be displaced in said discharge aisle (Fig. 2 #26’ displaced along #35).
Schafer (US 2009/0129902) explains that when systems use operating personnel to pick the orders from the racks, the personnel have to cover very long paths within the aisle for arriving at the goods and the system is unevenly used to capacity (Paragraph 0010 lines 9-14). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) provides a system with an automated discharge device which provides sorting containers to predetermined rack warehouse positions (Paragraph 0012 lines 16-19), and this system provides a more efficient order-picking warehouse (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-4). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) explains that the process of storing goods can be decoupled from the process of retrieving goods (Paragraph 0019 lines 1-4), and this allows greater dynamic in comparison with systems where storing and retrieving goods both took place at the front face (Paragraph 0015 lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) to include an automated discharge device configured to take a sorting container from a sorting level and displace it to a discharge level, and a discharge aisle adjacent and parallel to the racking and arranged on the other side of the racking from the sorting aisle, the discharge device being configured to be displaced in said discharge aisle as taught by Schafer (US 2009/0129902) in order to provide a more efficient system and reduce operator involvement and provide a more dynamic process since the process of storing goods is decoupled from the process of retrieving goods.
Regarding claim 3, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the discharge device is also configured to be displaced in the sorting aisle (Paragraph 0029 lines 7-8, Paragraph 0034 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 4, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 3, wherein the sorting device is also a discharge device (Paragraph 0034 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 6, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 1, wherein the sorting device is an Autonomous Mobile Robot (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-4) comprising climbing means (Fig. 9 #125 “drive wheels”) able to cooperate with complementary climbing means arranged in the sorting aisle (Fig. 3 #102, 104, Paragraph 0039 lines 10-17), and transfer means for transferring the article to the sorting container (Paragraph 0039 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 7, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 4, wherein the discharge device (Fig. 5 #120 “vehicle”) is an automatically guided carriage distinct from an autonomous mobile robot (Paragraph 0034 lines 7-12, “other automated retrieval device”) and is adapted to transport sorting containers Paragraph 0034 lines 7-12), said carriage comprising climbing means (Fig. 9 #125 “drive wheels”) able to cooperate with complementary second climbing means (Fig. 3 #102, 104, Paragraph 0039 lines 10-17).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) lacks teaching said carriage arranged in the discharge aisle, and gripping means to take a sorting container to be displaced.
Schafer (US 2009/0129902) teaches a system for vertically sorting articles (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) wherein the discharge device (Fig. 2 #26’) is an automatically guided carriage (Paragraph 0121 lines 1-9), said carriage arranged in the discharge aisle (Fig. 1A #26’ arranged in aisle of #26), and gripping means to take a sorting container to be displaced (Paragraph 0103 lines 4-7). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) explains that when systems use operating personnel to pick the orders from the racks, the personnel have to cover very long paths within the aisle for arriving at the goods and the system is unevenly used to capacity (Paragraph 0010 lines 9-14). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) provides a system with an automated discharge device which provides sorting containers to predetermined rack warehouse positions (Paragraph 0012 lines 16-19), and this system provides a more efficient order-picking warehouse (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-4). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) explains that the load suspension device comprises a grabbing mechanism which engages at the front side of the load suspension device, lifts the same a little bit and pulls out the same to manipulate the load support (Paragraph 0102 lines 13-16, Paragraph 0103 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) to include said carriage arranged in the discharge aisle, and gripping means to take a sorting container to be displaced taught by Schafer (US 2009/0129902) in order to provide a more efficient system and reduce operator involvement.
Regarding claim 8, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 6, wherein:
a sorting level (Fig. 5 level of #60) comprises a sorting track (Fig. 3 #104 and #102 at each level) allowing displacement of the autonomous mobile robot from or to a sorting container (Paragraph 0039 lines 10-17),
the sorting aisle (Fig. 2 #35) comprises a sorting well (Fig. 2 #25) connecting said sorting track to the article reception level (Fig. 2 #25 connects #102, 104 to reception level of #20), said sorting well comprising complementary climbing means to allow displacement of the autonomous mobile robot in the well (Paragraph 0041 lines 3-9).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) lacks teaching a sorting track allowing displacement of the autonomous mobile robot in said sorting level from or to a sorting container.
Schafer (US 2009/0129902) teaches a system for vertically sorting articles (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4) wherein a sorting level (Fig. 2 #46) comprises a sorting track (Paragraph 0081 lines 1-5) allowing displacement of the autonomous mobile robot (Fig. 2 #33) in said sorting level from or to a sorting container (Paragraph 0081 lines 1-10). Schafer (US 2009/0129902) explains that the rack feeder is movable simultaneously in the horizontal direction and vertical direction along a rack (Paragraph 0087 lines 7-12), therefore traveling a shorter travel to or from a sorting container.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) to include a sorting track allowing displacement of the autonomous mobile robot in said sorting level from or to a sorting container as taught by Schafer (US 2009/0129902) in order to reduce the distance traveled by the autonomous mobile robot to or from a sorting container.
Regarding claim 10, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches a method for sorting articles implementing the sorting system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) in view of Schafer (US 2009/0129902) and further in view of Kita et al. (US 5002449).
Regarding claim 9, Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches the sorting system according to claim 8, wherein:
a sorting level (Fig. 5 level of #60) comprises a discharge track (Fig. 3 #104 and #102 at each level) allowing displacement of an automatically guided carriage (Fig. 5 #120, Paragraph 0034 lines 7-18) to take or set down a sorting container to be displaced (Paragraph 0034 lines 7-18),
a discharge aisle (Paragraph 0029 lines 7-8, Paragraph 0034 lines 7-9) comprises a discharge well (Fig. 2 #25), said discharge well comprising complementary second climbing means to allow displacement of the automatically guided carriage in the discharge well (Paragraph 0041 lines 3-9).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) lacks teaching a discharge track allowing displacement of the automatically guided carriage in said sorting level, and a discharge well connecting said discharge track to the article discharge level.
Kita et al. (US 5002449) teaches a system for vertically sorting articles (Col. 1 lines 6-9) wherein:
a sorting level (Fig. 17 see level of #4 “rack”) comprises a discharge track (Fig. 17 #7) allowing displacement of the automatically guided carriage (Fig. 17 #6) in said sorting level (Col. 3 line 63-Col. 4 line 4), and a discharge well (Fig. 17 #56) connecting said discharge track to the article discharge level (Fig. 17 #56 connecting #7 to level of #66).
Kita et al. (US 5002449) explains that the discharge devices are independently driven in each respective sorting level, such that power consumption is small and operating efficiency is excellent while wiring is simplified (Col. 2 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) to include a discharge track allowing displacement of the automatically guided carriage in said sorting level, and a discharge well connecting said discharge track to the article discharge level as taught by Kita et al. (US 5002449) in order to provide an automatically guided carriage independently driven in each sorting level such that power consumption is small and operating efficiency is excellent while wiring is simplified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Muttathil does not disclose or suggest an automated discharge device capable of removing entire sorting containers from sorting levels and transporting them to a discharge level, the Examiner would like to clarify the following. Muttathil states “the storage locations may be used to accumulate items so that an operator or other automated retrieval device can retrieve the items from the storage location. For instance, a storage bin 40 may be located in each storage location 50 and the system may deliver items to the different storage bins to fulfill customer orders. Once the system has delivered all of the items to a particular storage bin that are required for an order, an operator removes the storage bin 40 from the storage location 50 and replaces the full storage bin with an empty storage bin” (Paragraph 0034 lines 9-18), therefore explaining that the operator or other automated retrieval device can retrieve an entire storage bin from the storage location and replace the full storage bin with an empty storage bin. Schafer is cited as teaching the automated discharge device capable of transporting the sorting containers to a discharge level (see claim 1 above).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Schafer does not teach discharge devices operating within a discharge aisle as required by amended claim 1, the Examiner would like to clarify that Schafer teaches a discharge aisle (see Fig. 2 aisle of #26’ facing #24) which is adjacent to the racking and parallel to the racking (Fig. 1A see aisle of #26’ adjacent and parallel to #20) and the discharge device is configured to be displaced along the discharge aisle (Fig. 2 see arrows #35 indicating displacement of #26’). The examiner would additionally like to clarify that Schafer is not relied upon as teaching the sorting aisle details nor the automated sorting device details as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that Schafer is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Schafer teaches a rack warehouse for order picking goods or articles, wherein the process of order-picking requires sorting and transferring items to a particular location. The operation of the vertical lifts taught by Schafer is to discharge the load supports from the rack storage position to the workstation, therefore providing the operation of the automated discharge device configured to take a sorting container from a sorting level and displace it to a discharge level.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The operator or other automated retrieval device that can retrieve an entire storage bin from the storage location and replace the full storage bin with an empty storage bin in Muttathil may be modified to include the teachings of Schafer, as Schafer provides a system with an automated discharge device which provides sorting containers to predetermined rack warehouse positions (Paragraph 0012 lines 16-19), and this system provides a more efficient order-picking warehouse (Paragraph 0011 lines 1-4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653