The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites that the conveyor unit comprises “a motor with contactor control”. The term is disclosed only nominally in the written specification. As no further description or definition thereof is provided, it fails to present any apparent patentably meaningful limitation. Claim 16 is included due to its dependency on claim 3.
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 1-12 and 16-19 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, line 4, “points” should be --point--;
and lines 8-9, the recitation “self-sufficient electrical system … supplied with electrical energy from outside” is not understood, as the second part of the limitation seems to contradict the first part, i.e., it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that a “self-sufficient” electrical system would not require an “outside” supply of electrical energy. Further, “self-sufficient” and “outside” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. They are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how, in what manner, and/or to what degree the electrical system is deemed to be “self-sufficient”, nor is it clear relative to what the term “outside” refers.
This applies to the analogous limitations in claim 11 as well.
Claim 3, it is not clear what is meant by “motor with contactor control”. The term is disclosed only nominally in the written specification. As no further description or definition thereof is provided, it fails to present any apparent patentably meaningful limitation.
Claim 8, it is not clear if the “pallet shuttle” and “at least one of a storage and retrieval machine or a narrow-aisle forklift” are intended to refer to the “load transport vehicle” of claim 1.
Claim 16, it is not clear if the recitation “does not include a frequency converter or electronic controller” refers to both components or just one or the other.
Claim 19, the recitation “the at least one of a storage and retrieval machine or a narrow-aisle forklift” lacks antecedent basis (in claim 1). It will be assumed the claim was intended to depend from claim 8.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 (as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above) and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suntory Holdings (hereinafter Suntory, JP 2022-140104, cited by applicant).
Suntory shows a transfer station 2/21/22 (two of which are shown in Fig.1) for loads P in logistics facilities S, comprising:
two transfer points 21, 22 of different types for loads, each transfer point[s] configured in such a way that a load transport vehicle 3, F of an associated vehicle type can acquire and release each load;
a conveyor unit 2 which is configured to transport the loads between the two transfer points; and
a “self-sufficient” (as broadly and indefinitely claimed) electrical system having a control unit 4 which is configured to be supplied with electrical energy from “outside” (as broadly and indefinitely claimed) and to automatically control the operation of the conveyor unit. While the reference does not utilize the same terminology used in the claim, to whatever extent the limitations may be given patentable weight, the electrical system for control unit 4 is considered to inherently be “self-sufficient”, at least to some extent, insofar as it is a separate component from the electrical system for the vehicle control system 5 (see par. [0052]), and to inherently receive energy from “outside” (i.e., regardless of the origin of its electrical energy source, such source is clearly “outside” relative to something).
Re claim 2, the conveyor unit is formed by a chain conveyor with continuous chains (Fig. 3 and pars. [0023] –[0025]).
Re claim 4, each of the two transfer points is assigned a corresponding occupancy sensor 7 (Fig. 3) which is configured to supply data to the control unit indicating whether the corresponding transfer point is occupied by a load (par. [0025]).
Re claim 6, the transfer station further comprises at least one position sensor 7 configured to indicate when a specified load position has been reached during transport of a load between the two transfer points (Fig. 3 and par. [0025]).
Re claim 8, at least one of the two transfer points 21 is designed such that a load can be placed thereon by a pallet shuttle 3 (noting that loads P are placed on a pallet PL; Fig. 3 and par. [0026]); and at least one of the two transfer points 22 is designed such that the load carried thereon can be acquired by at least one of a storage and retrieval machine F and/or or a narrow-aisle forklift F, or the load can be placed thereon by the at least one of the storage and retrieval machine or the narrow-aisle forklift.
Re claim 10, at least one intermediate position 23-26 is arranged on a transport path of the conveyor unit between the two transfer points to temporarily hold the load (Fig. 3 and par. [0043]).
Claim 11 is treated in substantially the same manner as claim 1 above, noting that Suntory discloses a system comprising the transfer station described above in addition to two load transport vehicles 3, F of different types.
Re claim 13, Suntory discloses a method for operating a system for transferring a load P from a first load transport vehicle F of a first type to a second load transport vehicle 3 of a second type, comprising the steps of:
releasing the load, by the first load transport vehicle, at a first transfer point 22 of a transfer station (Fig. 1);
detecting, by a first occupancy sensor 7 and/or 62 assigned to the first transfer point, the load is present at the first transfer point (Fig. 3; pars. [0034], [0035]);
operating a conveyor unit 2 of the transfer station to transport the load from the first transfer point towards a second transfer point 21 of the transfer station provided that a second occupancy sensor 7 and/or 61 assigned to the second transfer point does not detect a second load present at the second transfer point (par. [0036]);
detecting, by a position sensor 7 and/or 61, when the load has reached the second transfer point (par. [0037]);
in response to detecting that the load has reached the second transfer point, terminating the operation of the conveyor unit (not explicitly stated but considered inherent from par. [0037]); and
acquiring the load, by the second load transport vehicle, at the second transfer point (par. [0037]).
The examiner notes the first and second types of load transport vehicles and the corresponding first and second transfer points could be transposed in the above analysis (pars. [0044] – [0047] and [0051]).
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 5, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntory in view of Lwali et al (US 10,689,200, cited by applicant).
Suntory does not disclose at least one surroundings sensor configured to supply data to the control unit which indicate whether the load transport vehicle is present in a vicinity of at least one of the two transfer points.
Lwali shows a similar transfer station 100 wherein a conveyor 101 transports loads to a transfer point 104 at which a load transport vehicle 152 acquires the load therefrom, and wherein the station includes at least one surroundings sensor 116 (or 118; Fig. 9 embodiment) configured to supply data to a control unit 103 which indicate whether the load transport vehicle is present in a vicinity of the transfer point (col. 7:6 to col. 8:22 and col. 11:4-37).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Suntory by providing at least one surroundings sensor configured to supply data to the control unit to indicate whether the load transport vehicle was present in a vicinity of at least one of the two transfer points, as suggested by Lwali, to ensure the vehicle was properly positioned at the transfer point prior to exchanging a load between the conveyor and the vehicle.
Re claim 12, the system of Suntory further comprises a warehouse management system 5, wherein information about loads acquired at the transfer station or placed thereon is transmitted between the two load transport vehicles and the warehouse management system (pars. [0034], [0036] – [0040], [0045]), but it is not only transmitted from the two load transport vehicles to the warehouse management system.
However, Lwali further discloses a warehouse management system 151, wherein information about loads acquired at the transfer station is only transmitted from the load transport vehicles to the warehouse management system (col. 3:52 to col. 4:17 and col. 12:4-7; Fig. 10, payload received signal 812).
The additional modification of Suntory with such a feature would have been obvious to simplify and improve the information exchange.
Re claim 14, for the same reason, it also would have been obvious to have modified the method of Suntory by transmitting information to the warehouse management system, by the first load transport vehicle, regarding the release of the load at the first transfer point, and by transmitting information to the warehouse management system, by the second load transport vehicle, regarding the acquisition of the load at the second transfer point.
Re claim 15, when modified as per claim 5 above with a surroundings sensor, it also would have been obvious to have modified the method of Suntory by utilizing such a sensor to, prior to operating the conveyor unit, checking a surrounding area of the first transfer point for an absence of the first load transport vehicle, to ensure that the first load transport vehicle had successfully completed its load transfer to the conveyor prior to operation thereof.
Re claim 18, Suntory does not explicitly disclose that the at least one position sensor comprises a light barrier, although it is disclosed as an optical sensor.
However, Lwali discloses analogous position sensors 112, which can be photo-eyes or light curtains (i.e., a light barrier) configured to indicate when a specified load position has been reached during transport of a load along the conveyor (col. 6:36-52).
It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Suntory by utilizing a light barrier as the position sensor, as taught by Lwali, as this would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of known types of optical sensors from which to choose for performing the same function in the same environment, the use of which in the apparatus of Suntory would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Re claim 19, Suntory shows that the transfer points are designed such that the pallet shuttle 3 can acquire the load from or place the load on a first of the transfer points 21, and the storage and retrieval machine or narrow-aisle forklift F can acquire the load from or place the load on a second of the transfer points 22, but does not show that the pallet shuttle can pass under the first transfer point while carrying the load.
However, Lwali shows that the transfer point is designed such that the load can be transferred to the load transfer vehicle either by the vehicle passing under the transfer point (Fig. 1) or by side loading instead of passing under the transfer point (Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have additionally modified the apparatus of Suntory by designing the first transfer point such that a shuttle could pass thereunder while carrying a load, as suggested by Lwali, as this is disclosed as an alternative equivalent to a side loading operation, and would allow a simpler type of vehicle to be used at the first transfer point.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntory in view of Feldkamper, FR 2492783).
Suntory does not show a timer unit configured, when the load reaches the position sensor, to trigger a predetermined runout time during which the conveyor unit continues to operate.
Feldkamper shows a conveyor system (Fig. 2) having a timer unit 22 configured, when a load 1 being conveyed reaches a position sensor 9, to trigger a predetermined runout time during which the conveyor unit continues to operate.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Suntory by providing a timer unit configured, when the load has reached the position sensor, to trigger a predetermined runout time during which the conveyor unit continues to operate, as shown by Feldkamper, to ensure accurate positioning of the conveyed article.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntory in view of Hansen et al (US 2023/0056402, cited by applicant).
Suntory does not disclose that at least one of the two transfer points is provided with a stop which is configured to serve as a support for the load in a correct pose for acquisition by the load transport vehicle.
Hansen shows a logistics arrangement wherein a transfer point of a conveyor loading structure 10 includes a barrier (stop) 42 configured to serve as a support for the load in a correct pose for acquisition by a load transport vehicle 20 (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Suntory by providing at least one of the transfer points with a stop which was configured to serve as a support for the load in a correct pose for acquisition by the load transport vehicle, as taught by Hansen, to help ensure a proper load transfer therebetween.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntory in view of Lwali et al, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hansen et al.
Re claim 17, Lwali discloses that the surroundings sensor 116/118 comprises “(without limitation) a photo-eye or light curtain”, and as such Suntory as modified thereby does not disclose that the at least one surroundings sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor or a capacitive sensor.
Hansen shows that the transfer point of the conveyor loading structure 10 includes a proximity sensor 52 (i.e., “surroundings sensor”) that can determine whether a load transport vehicle 20 is present in a vicinity of the transfer point, wherein the surroundings sensor can comprise an ultrasonic sensor or a capacitive sensor as an alternative to optical sensors (pars. [0067], [0070], and claim 8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Suntory by configuring the at least one surroundings sensor such that it comprised an ultrasonic sensor or a capacitive sensor, as Hansen explicitly discloses these types of sensors as functionally equivalent alternatives for performing the same function in a substantially similar environment, and as such the use thereof would have merely been the selection of one such known alternative based on well-established parameters such as cost, availability, reliability, etc.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Edwards and Bao show timer units for controlling a conveyor system. Groessl shows a sensor system for a transfer point of a conveyor. Iversen, Norrie and Edelhoff show transfer stations with different transfer points on each end of an intervening conveyor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
6/11/26
Prosecution Insights