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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Claims 1-11 were amended by preliminary amendment and claims 12-17 are new.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
We interpret applicant’s “one movement” (recited in claims 1-2, 7-8, and 14) per the instant specification P3/L13-18 as mechanical action that moves an article from a container, conveyor or other place at which an article is made available to a planned destination on the pallet without any intermediate buffering or temporary placement of the article at another location.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler, Walter, US 7,047,710 (hereinafter Winkler) in view of Morency, et al., US 9,701,490 (hereinafter Morency).
Regarding claim 1,
Winkler discloses:
A method C2/L12-21 for the automatic, multi-layered stacking of packing pieces (article 15: fig. 4) of different dimensions (different sizes, C2/L12-21) on a support (base of load carrier 20: fig. 13) in a predetermined spatial arrangement (step S22: fig. 7) to form a stack (stack 21: fig. 13), comprising:
determining, in a computer-assisted manner (method performed by warehouse management computer, C5/L46-C6/L5; flow chart fig. 7), the sequence (step S24: fig. 7) and spatial position (step S22: fig. 7) of the packing pieces of different dimensions in the stack to be formed on the support;
obtaining the packing pieces supported on loading aids and in a sequence required for this purpose by conveying equipment (conveying equipment, C4/L53-C5/L27, conveying paths 42: fig. 8)
transporting the packing pieces to be loaded from the conveying equipment to the precalculated spatial positions on the support or the stack being formed on the support by a package handling system (various devices 51-57: fig. 10; C7/L9-37) of a stacking device (loading apparatus 50: fig. 10) to form the stack; and
However, Winkler does not disclose:
lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm grips at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement. While Winkler’s packing pieces appear to be deployed from its loading aid to the pallet stack in one movement, Winkler’s grippers are not arranged and employed as claimed here.
Morency, an invention in the same field as Winkler and the applicant, teaches:
lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper (tool 10: fig. 1) of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm (robot arm 14: fig. 1) grips at least one packing piece (step 218: fig. 5) and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement (step 220: fig. 5). Morency teaches the claimed “one movement” in flowchart fig. 5. At step 218, the product (packing piece) is gripped by the gripping tool, and in the next step 220 it is placed at its destination with no intervening motion or intermediate placement of the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler, for lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm grips at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, as taught by Morency, because Morency’s one-movement method is evidently efficient in comparison to other methods that may require either intermediate placement of an article or subsequent adjustment of an article’s position in a pallet stack after its first placement. Moreover, robot arms bearing grippers are also commonplace in the art.
Regarding claim 3,
Winkler in view of Morency teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the packing pieces are obtained in a singulated manner on the loading aids.Winkler discloses single articles on its perforated-tray loading aids in C4/L26-36, the trays being individually transported on a conveyor in fig. 10.
Regarding claim 6,
Winkler in view of Morency teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising orienting the packing pieces on the loading aid before gripping the packing piecesWinkler discloses this step in C5/L28-45 and C6/L27-C7/L3.
Regarding claim 7,
Winkler discloses:
A device (loading apparatus 50: fig. 8) for the automatic, multi-layered stacking of packing pieces (article 15: fig. 4) of different dimensions (different sizes, C2/L12-21) on a support (base of load carrier 20: fig. 13) in a predetermined spatial arrangement (step S22: fig. 7) to form a stack (stack 21: fig. 13), comprising:
a controller (warehouse management computer, C5/L46-C6/L5;
at least one supply conveyor (conveying equipment, C4/L53-C5/L27, conveying paths 42: fig. 8) configured to provide the packing pieces lying on loading aids in a predetermined sequence; and
a package handing system (various devices 51-57: fig. 10; C7/L9-37), adjoining a discharge end of the supply conveyor, configured to pick up the packing pieces from the supply conveyor and transport them to the predetermined position in the stack;
However, Winkler does not disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to activate a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot to grip the respective packing piece on the loading aid and to place the packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement. While Winkler’s packing pieces appear to be deployed from its loading aid to the pallet stack in one movement, Winkler’s grippers are not arranged and employed as claimed here.
Morency, an invention in the same field as Winkler and the applicant, teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to activate a gripper (tool 10: fig. 1) of the package handling system arranged on a robot (robot arm 14: fig. 1) to grip the respective packing piece (step 218: fig. 5) on the loading aid and to place the packing piece at the precalculated spatial position (step 220: fig. 5) on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement.Morency teaches the claimed “one movement” in flowchart fig. 5. At step 218, the product (packing piece) is gripped by the gripping tool, and in the next step 220 it is placed at its destination with no intervening motion or intermediate placement of the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler, wherein the controller is configured to activate a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot to grip the respective packing piece on the loading aid and to place the packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, as taught by Morency, because Morency’s one-movement method is evidently efficient in comparison to other methods that may require either intermediate placement of an article or subsequent adjustment of an article’s position in a pallet stack after its first placement.
Claims 2, 5-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler in view of Morency and further in view of Fritzsche, Roland, US 7,938,614 (hereinafter Fritzsche).
Regarding claim 2,
Winkler in view of Morency teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the packing pieces are obtained supported on perforated trays (Winkler, 10: fig. 4) having multiple openings (Winkler, 11: fig. 4) and the package handling system of the stacking device is designed to lift the packing pieces in each case by a plurality of lifting pins (Winkler, 54: fig. 10) of a lifting device through the multiple openings in the perforated tray from below to such an extent that a gap is produced between the perforated tray and the packing piece, (Winkler, claimed procedure, C7/L9-37)
However, neither reference teaches all aspects of:
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper for gripping the at least one packing piece placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement. While Winkler discloses the possible use of a gripper at this step in its method in C6/L27-45, it does not disclose the structure of the gripper. However, for this reason Winkler is compatible with the claimed tined gripper.
Fritzsche, an invention in the same field as Winkler and Morency and the applicant teaches:
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper (support comb 7, tines 8: fig. 4) for gripping the at least one packing piece placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement.In combination with Winkler and Morency, Winkler’s precise placement of articles according to a pallet stacking plan is augmented by the use of Fritzsche’s tines in Morency’s gripper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler and Morency, wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper for gripping the at least one packing piece placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, as taught by Fritzsche, because the use of tined or fork transfer and gripping devices is widespread in the art and has been in common use for generations.
Regarding claim 5,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein the tine gripper grips a predetermined number of packing pieces simultaneously or successively.Per Winkler’s C4/L26-36 and fig. 10, the predetermined number is 1 and the packing pieces are gripped successively.
Regarding claim 8,
Winkler in view of Morency teaches the limitations of claim 7 and also:
wherein the loading aids comprise perforated trays (Winkler, 10: fig. 4), and wherein the device further comprises a lifting device having a plurality of vertically movable lifting pins (Winkler, 54: fig. 10) in an arrangement adapted to the multiple openings (Winkler, 11: fig. 4) of the perforated trays,
and wherein the controller is designed to activate the lifting device such that lifting pins are moved vertically upwards to such an extent that a gap is produced between the perforated tray and the packing piece, (Winkler, claimed procedure, C7/L9-37)
However, neither reference teaches all aspects of:
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper and is configured to be activated in order to grip the respective packing piece through the gap and place same at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement. While Winkler discloses the possible use of a gripper at this step in its method in C6/L27-45, it does not disclose the structure of the gripper. However, for this reason Winkler is compatible with the claimed tined gripper.
Fritzsche, an invention in the same field as Winkler and Morency and the applicant teaches:
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper (support comb 7, tines 8: fig. 4) and is configured to be activated in order to grip the respective packing piece through the gap and place same at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement.In combination with Winkler and Morency, Winkler’s precise placement of articles according to a pallet stacking plan is augmented by the use of Fritzsche’s tines in Morency’s gripper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler and Morency, wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper and is configured to be activated in order to grip the respective packing piece through the gap and place same at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, as taught by Fritzsche, because the use of tined or fork transfer and gripping devices is widespread in the art and has been in common use for generations.
Regarding claim 9,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein the tine gripper is configured for automatically gripping and placing packing units of different dimensions and different configurations, comprising a support framework (Fritzsche, support frame 2: fig. 4), to which a support (Fritzsche, support 3: fig. 4), a hold-down device (Fritzsche, hold-down device 4: fig. 4) and a stripper (Fritzsche, stripper 5: fig. 4) are fastened;
wherein the support is configured to be horizontally movable with respect to the support framework (Fritzsche, C4/L48-56), the hold-down device is movable vertically in the direction of the support (Fritzsche, C4/L57-C5/L2) and so, via mechanical clamping, the packing unit can be pressed against the support and the stripper is arranged above the support so that the packing unit is secured when the support is withdrawn (Fritzsche, as seen in fig. 4 and explained in C4/L48-C5/L6), and wherein the stripper is configured to be movable horizontally (Fritzsche, C5/L33-44) in parallel with the support, such that the hold-down device is two-dimensional and that the hold-down device has dimensions such that it extends over the entire surface of the support (Fritzsche, as seen in fig. 4), that the support is designed as a support plate or support comb having a plurality of spaced-apart tines (Fritzsche, as seen in fig. 4), that the stripper has a horizontal wall which is provided with a rod-like structure (Fritzsche, as seen in fig. 4) and that the hold-down device is provided with cut-outs for engagement of the stripper therethrough (Fritzsche, as seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the hold-down device has an elastic lining on its side facing the support. (Fritzsche, C3/L52-55)
Regarding claim 11,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the support framework is fastened to a gantry robot or bent arm robot. (Fritzsche, C2/L12-21)
Regarding claim 12,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
wherein the hold-down device has an elastic lining on its side facing the support. (Fritzsche, C3/L52-55)
Regarding claim 13,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 12 and also:
wherein the support framework is fastened to a gantry robot or bent arm robot. (Fritzsche, C2/L12-21)
Regarding claim 14,
Winkler discloses:
A method C2/L12-21 for the automatic, multi-layered stacking of packing pieces (article 15: fig. 4) of different dimensions (different sizes, C2/L12-21) on a support (base of load carrier 20: fig. 13) in a predetermined spatial arrangement (step S22: fig. 7) to form a stack (stack 21: fig. 13), comprising:
determining, in a computer-assisted manner (method performed by warehouse management computer, C5/L46-C6/L5; flow chart fig. 7), the sequence (step S24: fig. 7) and spatial position (step S22: fig. 7) of the packing pieces of different dimensions in the stack to be formed on the support;
obtaining the packing pieces supported on loading aids and in a sequence required for this purpose by conveying equipment; (conveying equipment, C4/L53-C5/L27, conveying paths 42: fig. 8)
transporting the packing pieces to be loaded from the conveying equipment to the precalculated spatial positions on the support or the stack being formed on the support by a package handling system (various devices 51-57: fig. 10; C7/L9-37) of a stacking device (loading apparatus 50: fig. 10) to form the stack; and
wherein the packing pieces (10: fig. 4) are obtained supported on perforated trays having multiple openings (11: fig. 4) and the package handling system of the stacking device is designed to lift the packing pieces in each case by a plurality of lifting pins (54: fig. 10) of a lifting device through the multiple openings in the perforated tray from below to such an extent that a gap is produced between the perforated tray and the packing piece, (claimed procedure, C7/L9-37)
However, Winkler does not disclose:
lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm grips at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement;While Winkler’s packing pieces appear to be deployed from its loading aid to the pallet stack in one movement, Winkler’s grippers are not arranged and employed as claimed here.
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper for gripping the at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, and wherein the tine gripper grips a predetermined number of packing pieces simultaneously or successively.While Winkler discloses the possible use of a gripper at this step in its method in C6/L27-45, it does not disclose the structure of the gripper. However, for this reason Winkler is compatible with the claimed tined gripper.
Morency, an invention in the same field as Winkler and the applicant, teaches:
lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper (tool 10: fig. 1) of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm (robot arm 14: fig. 1) grips at least one packing piece (step 218: fig. 5) and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position (step 220: fig. 5) on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement;Morency teaches the claimed “one movement” in flowchart fig. 5. At step 218, the product (packing piece) is gripped by the gripping tool, and in the next step 220 it is placed at its destination with no intervening motion or intermediate placement of the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler, lifting the packing pieces in each case from the loading aid such that a gripper of the package handling system arranged on a robot arm grips at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, as taught by Morency, because Morency’s one-movement method is evidently efficient in comparison to other methods that may require either intermediate placement of an article or subsequent adjustment of an article’s position in a pallet stack after its first placement.
Fritzsche, an invention in the same field as Winkler and Morency and the applicant teaches:
and wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper (support comb 7, tines 8: fig. 4) for gripping the at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement,
and wherein the tine gripper grips a predetermined number of packing pieces simultaneously or successively.While Fritzsche does not disclose a predetermined number of packing pieces, in combination with Winkler and Morency, using Fritzsche’s device in Winkler’s base system would necessarily yield a predetermined number equal to 1 based on Winkler’s C4/L26-36 and fig. 10, because Winkler’s system supplies one packing piece at a time, i.e. successively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler and Morency, wherein the gripper comprises a tine gripper for gripping the at least one packing piece and placing the at least one packing piece at the precalculated spatial position on the support or the stack being formed on the support in one movement, and wherein the tine gripper grips a predetermined number of packing pieces simultaneously or successively, as taught by Fritzsche, because the use of tined or fork transfer and gripping devices is widespread in the art and has been in common use for generations, and because the successive supply of a single item is a routine feature of many conveyance systems.
Regarding claim 15,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
wherein the packing pieces are obtained in a singulated manner on the loading aids. Per the rejection above, Winkler teaches singulation as claimed in C4/L26-36 and fig. 10.
Regarding claim 17,
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 14 and also:
further comprising orienting the packing pieces on the loading aid before gripping the packing pieces.Winkler discloses this step in C5/L28-45 and C6/L27-C7/L3.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche, and further in view of Issing, Elmer, US 2013/0306434 (hereinafter Issing).
Winkler in view of Morency and Fritzsche teaches the limitations of claim 1 (parent of claim 4) and claim 14 (parent of claim 16) but not:
wherein a plurality of packing pieces are obtained on each loading aid.None of the references teach loading aids carrying more than a single packing piece. However, Winkler’s trays as seen in its fig. 4 are plainly capable of loading more items per tray than the one item depicted.
Issing, an invention in the field of tray-handling for packing and unpacking, teaches:
wherein a plurality of packing pieces (27: fig. 1) are obtained on each loading aid (14: fig. 1).Issing teaches the claimed plurality in [0089]. In combination with the other references, Issing modifies Winkler’s loading aids with a plurality of items per tray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Winkler, Morency, and Fritzsche, wherein a plurality of packing pieces are obtained on each loading aid, as taught by Issing, because evidently it is more efficient to transport a plurality of packing pieces on the same tray (when some or all of the pieces will be placed on a pallet) than to transport them one at a time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,738,462 and US 9,776,812 are examples of applicant’s older art, disclosing a singulated feed of one article per loading aid tray. US 10,647,528 is an example of another approach to mixed-case or rainbow pallet assembly that could also have been cited in rejection of aspects of the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights